User talk:Coffee

Back?

Not sure because of the header. I hope you are back. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see your date stamp. I hope you got some rest on your break. The pedia seems saner when you're watching. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual misconduct

Hi Coffee, thanks for applying the discretionary sanctions to the Roy Moore sexual misconduct article. I had already applied them under the BLP case authority, but the page must have been moved without the page notice again. I’m fine with your sanctions as well since they are the exact same, but I didn’t know what to do. Yours is likely in a clearer subject area, so it might be worth rescinding mine.

Also, you’re probably interested in the parameter conversation at Template talk:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions. If you’re still not back, feel free to ignore this, but thought it best to post. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN/C

I have reverted your removal of Abductive's comment. Any admin deciding on whether to post that story would easily be able to decide whether to take it into account. It's the same, for example, as any AFD where someone says "KEEP IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOTABLE! YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS!" and so on. Best, Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I went to ITN/C for precisely that reason. Can you explain to me why the comment is necessary for the discussion to come to a conclusion there? I'd welcome your insight on this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you're right - I didn't notice "and murderer". The rest of it was just ranting. Reverted myself. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Thank you!! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Ad Orientem (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back, Coffee! You have been missed! Some flowers for you, above. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) Patient Zero^talk 10:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome back, Coffee! Here's some coffee to welcome you back after you get drunk from Ad Orientem's whiskey. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Good to see you. GMG^talk 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm really glad you're back, Coffee. GAB^gab 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cannoli

Hi. Thanks for adding pending changes to Cannoli yesterday. However, I think we may need to do semi protection for an extended period as there were about 5 of the same edits to the page by different IPs today alone. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I've blocked the bothersome IP. Let me know if the behavior shows up again. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Files for deletion

File:Scaleless Dino.png

File:Bad T.rex.png

Hi, thanks for your action on User:KingOfBirbs. He uploaded these two files. They are obviously unencyclopedic. I am unfamiliar with the file deletion process. Can you either delete them or advise me of how to get them summarily deleted? (No response is necessary if you delete them yourself.) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Medeis: N Deleted — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lebanon?

Hi Coffee, Can you explain why you placed Lebanon under the 30-500 restriction[1][2]? It doesn't look like it was being vandalized or even edited recently. --DHeyward (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: IIRC, it was listed at RFPP then protected under standard procedure (for 30/500). There isn't a requirement for X amount of editing during Y amount of time, as far as I have ever been made aware. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_extended_confirmed_protection#As_arbitration_enforcement --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), meh, the enforcement provision applies regardless of the protection status, and a poorly attended talk page discussion doesn't change that. Its a discretion thing, and I think Coffee's action makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That isn't nearly a guideline, let alone a policy. In fact at the top of the page you can find this: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." No thank you. I'll continue to protect under Arbitration policies, until you successfully stop DS from existing (which you won't). Good luck. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

KingOfBirbs ?

Just a quick question, you recently blocked User:KingOfBirbs as a sock puppet. I'm usually pretty good at spotting these things, but I'm not sure which of our ref-desk socks he is? Can you identify the sockmaster so I can know who to look out for in the future? Thanks! --Jayron32 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: It's definitely one I've ran into before, I can't remember off the top of my head though. Let me see if I can find it for you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't seem to find it, upon thorough review. As such, I've amended the block settings. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW

I never reverted any template removals on the talk page of 89.64.1.194. I did add a new one when they continued the same actions but I didn't readd the old ones. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@GnomeSweetGnome: Roger that, misread the history. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No biggie :) GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus

Thanks for removing copyright violations from there but problem is still not solved, see my recent edits there. One source copied much from an al-jazeera source while other copied one hell of a page of 2,100 characters. More suppression of diffs is needed. Capitals00 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Think I got it now. Care to confirm? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Could you kindly confirm if what Capitals00 said is correct? I have doubts on the above, particularly after he restored 11k of copyright violations by Anmolbhat. Nice username btw. Mar4d (talk) 8:43 am, Today (UTC−8)

@Mar4d: From what I can tell, yes. Thank you! Apologies for the late reply... seems your comment got removed in some confusion here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

[3] is the diff from where it started. So suppressing should be made from there. Capitals00 (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00:  Done — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: there are also serious copyright violation problems with the whole article here. [4] I have checked the sources and can confirm the copyvio. Please suppress the revisions before Danish.mehraj removed the copyvio problems and block those who are restoring the copyvio. KA$HMIR (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Coffee, but when I am accused of logging out to edit war.....yeah. Which I have addressed that and the other editor's opinion of reliable sources on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: It's your logged-in edits I'm warning you about, such as here. If you think your version is the Right Version™, you're probably part of the problem. We have a zero tolerance policy for edit-warring, just because you reverted just under 4 times does not mean I am not permitted to block you. If I see you edit-warring again, you will be the one receiving the block. It's that simple. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) [see my editnotice; due to the nature of your comment I didn't read past the first line... if you enjoy wasting your time, please continue - Coffee] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I imagine the reference to "The Right Version" was a reference to this meta page. The behaviour at Battle of Mohi was inappropriate, and I don't personally believe this was "blatant vandalism" as required and defined by WP:3RRNO. The best way for everyone to deal with something which may or may not be vandalism is to WP:BRD and then bring it to the attention of another experienced editor if the other party doesn't stop -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 16:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: "Asterisit" being a WP:NOTHERE account was apparant since long ago. Way before the episode with Kansas Bear. Those 13 diffs don't just drop out of the sky. How "Asterisit" managed to jump the gun for such amount of time, is truly beyond me. But then again, there are dozens of similar cases.

Btw, just curious; why do you think this is not "blatant vandalism", when its, once again, a removal of sourced content from the same page? By a user who's been removing sourced content from the very same page, for an extended period of time? You should link the two contexts together.

I think alot of people still fall for WP:CRUSH and are therefore not able to interpet the first line of WP:VANDALISM the way it should be. I quote: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."

I do agree with the rest you said. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Asteriset has been blocked for 1 week. If you believe this user deserves a site ban, I suggest you open a complaint against Asteriset at WP:AN. Beyond that, my warning stands. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There's no earthly way that this counts as "blatant vandalism", and if any admin were to take action as such I'd be hauling them straight off for desysopping. Whether Asterist is right or wrong, they're making it clear that their removal is based on their not considering ABC-CLIO a reliable source on this topic; this is a matter for those wanting this particular source to discuss on the talkpage, not to fling accusations around. ‑ Iridescent 17:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Coffee.

Please can you review this block? It seems he really understand what he did. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: It appears my trusted colleague, Iridescent, has handled the matter. Thank you for the notification. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

E. Hunter Harrison

Hi,

The IP hopping vandal is back. Could you do the decent thing and block again? Many thanks. Morphenniel (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Might have to keep an eye on this range; it belongs to Sprint so whoever this is is probably IP-hopping on a cell phone. For the sake of WP:BEANS, I won't suggest articles to keep an eye on. Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

HI, I just saw your response to the 3RR I filed, and while I appreciate you dealing with that IP address, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the other 2 accounts I mentioned; User:RJDVZYR and User:RJDZVYR...? I wasn't sure where I should ask you about this, (feel free to point me to the right place if it's not here), but their histories and actions suggest to me they're related (along with some other 117.173.x.x & 117.174.x.x IPs). Is there something I, or anyone, should be doing about these accounts? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Due to the time critical nature of ANEW, I sometimes overlook the comments entirely (if the issue is obviously clear by clicking on the article history). I've corrected the error, both accounts blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Thank you for the heads up! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick response! Have a good day. - ^theWOLFchild 16:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

They are persistent...

After you blocked/banned a pair of socks and an IP account (117.173.161.82) several hours ago, you reverted the last 3 edits the IP made to 3 articles. Well, all 3 of those edits have just been reverted again, (I'm sure you got the notices), one by ‎117.174.159.30, the other two by 223.86.157.21. FYI; they all belong to the same ISP in China. I've seen this going on for some time now, likely one, maybe two people working together, using numerous addresses in the 117.x.x.x range, as well as 223.x.x.x, (some other in the 200's.x.x.s) they edit within certain circles of interest (a lot of military, plus some other related stuff). They edit-war at will, jump from account to account, rarely attach refs and never communicate, either by edit summaries or talk pages. I don't know what WP can do, but hopefully something. If you need anything from me, lemme know. I've tagged several of their talk pages with welcome/shared-ip template combos along with some notifications, so they're on my watchlist. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 14:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

again

I see from this edit that your friend from China is back, still trying to push through the same edit that I, then you, reverted, before you blocked him. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 07:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And now he's IP-hopping again, apparently ready for another edit war. Like all the times before, he jumps between 117.x.x.x and 223.x.x.x series of addresses, all belonging to "China Mobile Guangdong" in the Jiangsu region of China. I can see this becoming a problem (or, more of one) so I'll leave it to you to decide how to best handle it. You're much more familiar with the policies, tools and procedures available to deal with this sort of thing. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 10:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IP hopping sockpuppets

Hello, this IP account ([5]) is doing disruptive edits again in the article Qashqai people. It is obviously related with the other one ([6]) you blocked today for evasion. A user check or something should be done here imo. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your work making sure that some of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia run smoothly upon your return. It is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Thanks much Tony! It's always nice to check my message notification and it not be a complaint. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Monotronic Deletion

Hi Coffee, I see that you've just decided to wipe the Monotronic Wikipedia page without adding any reasoning to the Articles for deletion page or considering the lack of debate exhibited there. I posted a lengthy Keep opinion there that was never responded to, and the only dissenting views was one that asked for a redirect and one that called for a delete without citing anything as well. Can you state your reasoning or rescind your deletion? Thanks Rocckker13 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rocckker13: I'm fairly certain I did add a reasoning (as I always do when deemed necessary). Perhaps you haven't refreshed your history, so here's a link. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning was stated as follows "Notability failed to be established by reliable sources (provided sources do not meet requirements of WP:RS nor WP:V)." Which as with everyone else, never contended with the keep opinion stated which also was the only one that sourced its response. Further, though the unreliability of the sources is disagreed upon, it is not the sole requirement to establish Notability. From the AFD page, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." and the only ones made were in favor of a keep resolution. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rocckker13: In your first comment here did you not claim I deleted the article "without adding any reasoning to the Articles for deletion page"? I do not expect most editors who ask for something other than the consensus found by administrators to agree with the consensus... which is the entire point of AFD's existence. If you disagree that the close properly reflected the consensus, and you believe this is not due to confirmation bias, then please feel free to go to deletion review. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't leave a reason, didn't contend with any of the opinions stated, just said you deleted it because its sources were unreliable without citing any sources or expounding on their unreliability. I don't disagree with the consensus found by the administrators because there was none, neither in the AFD itself nor among administrators stated as your reason for deletion. Rules state that you have to address the Admin who made the deletion prior to making a deletion review case, so I came to you. I'll head over to the review page now. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If I said I deleted it "because" of something, then I left a reason. Please look up wikt:because. Your English does not appear to be polished either, so it may be possible that we're talking past each other. Either way, I'm not overturning this based on the notion that I didn't do something I clearly did. I'd need a much better reason than that to reverse any such administrative close. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My English is perfectly fine. Grammar can occasionally become an issue as can formatting, on this site specifically, but the wording and rationale are there. "Because the sources were unsubstantial" without citing which sources were unsubstantial or explaining why they weren't up to snuff is not a reason, its an opinion. Further, there was no attempt at fostering a consensus nor any mention of dissenting views in the decision, which are antithetical to the idea of a communal decision. I came to your page to follow procedure for a deletion review, they highly recommend you try to hash out disagreements with the Admin who deleted the page before you make a post there. Although we've had more discussion here than there was on the AFD page, I've posted it for review as per your requested. Rocckker13 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Monotronic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monotronic. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlandic sound shift

Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlandic sound shift in the middle of a discussion? I do not appreciate it. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Editør: Deletion discussions last for seven days, after that they are usually closed. I apologize for the way that seems to have came across as a slight to you, as it was not intended as such. If you believe there is more to be accomplished by discussing it further, I would be fine with relisting it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that deleting the article and ignoring the discussion was unnecessarily bold. It is my understanding that the problem of the nominator with the article was not so much the content but mostly the term 'Netherlandic sound shift' as title. Renaming this article or moving the content to another article (possibly North Sea Germanic) would have been a more logical next step. – Editør (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not have to "[ignore] the discussion" in order to delete the article, there is no dichotomy. I stated I would be willing to relist the discussion, but it does not appear that you want that (at least you haven't stated as such). But, to say the nomination was done for the title is completely misreading the situation. The nominator was not pleased with the amount of perceivable original research and the lack of apparent notability. Please do not take me for a fool. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The nominator said that "(...) one of the sources (...) does mention the shifts specified. It's just that the term does not exist." So the term 'Netherlandic sound shift' is the OR (or SYNTH) here and the described phenomena were not. Another user questioned the term's notability and argued the term was OR/SYNTH as well. – Editør (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I find your lack of response disappointing. – Editør (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex and Jack

Coffee, I don't know if I made this clear enough three years ago, but you've still got my eternal gratitude for dealing with this way back when. And I'm generally a fan of your other work as well. But I think by taking away Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)'s editing rights and then stepping away you may have made the wrong call. Both of those editors are extremely verbose (and this is coming from the guy who wrote this and this), so it seems like nothing is gonna come of that TLDR mess at ANI unless the two of them agree to a mutual interaction ban. But the way you dealt with it early on appears to have convince Jack that the IBAN is a two-way punishment for two-way disruptive behaviour, and I'm having trouble convincing him otherwise. Would you mind chiming in and saying that the revocation of editor rights was a procedural matter and you didn't do it, or suggest an IBAN, because you think Alex shits gold farts sunshine?

I wouldn't ask if I thought it was a necessity to read through the entire mess for you to do it, and if I didn't think that clarification that everyone is on the same page that accepting of an IBAN as a standard remedy for alleged hounding does not amount to an admission of guilt. And I'm not asking you to close the great mess either (at least not until both Alex and Jack have accepted the mutual IBAN).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I don't know about editor rights or how any of them work. I was creating content on here for twelve years before someone else asked me if I wanted to be autoreviewed, and I had to ask them what they meant. I don't know if any other admin would do what you did as a procedural matter or if it was a judgement call. I know I agree with most of your judgement calls (the ones I've seen anyway), but that some others don't. I would guess based on context (and this diff that I read out of context because it was shown to me out of context) that Jack admitted to using an editor right or some such to keep an eye on Alex's edits specifically because Alex was harassing him rather than for said rights' normal purpose. But I have no idea. What I mean by the above is that I think it would do a world of good if you clarified that you didn't do it in this case, and didn't propose an IBAN, because you took Alex's word for it that the disruption was one-sided on Jack's part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just wasted part of an afternoon wading through that mess of an ANI and various diffs and I have to concur; there's no major disruptive party here, Jack and Alex - and others to a lesser extent - are (at least) equally to blame here, so my inclination would be to treat them equally; at the moment it does appear to an outside observer that Jack has had his rights pulled but no sanction has been applied to Alex. If it was down to me I'd restore Jack's rights and slap a simple two-way IBAN on both of them. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

[7] — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Good work, I think that's the best way forward. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As always, many thanks for you advice! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Thank you, Coffee! (And while I do not agree with you assessment, User:Black Kite, that Alex does not deserve at least a final warning for his repeated accusations of "personal attacks" and going dark when asked for evidence, I appreciate that as the recipient of those accusations I'm a little biased. Hopefully Jack will just accept the IBAN and the whole bloody mess can be closed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed my mind on the last part, once I thought on it a bit more. Yes, I'm biased, and thus invested in Alex receiving a stern warning for his attacks on me, but there are other users who have expressed similar bias based on his separate (supposed) attacks on them, so it wouldn't really be my place to unilaterally withdraw even if I wanted to. It should also probably be borne in mind that my above comment was influenced by my other bias in favour of seeing the whole thing closed, because I've become pretty damn sick of it. (Normally, I would just ignore and return to editing articles, but I am still tired of editing articles after last month, and time I don't spend on ANI has recently been, by necessity, spent cleaning up plagiarized text, a task I don't much enjoy.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

MykhalBot

Please look again at the nature of MykhalBot's edits (false edit alert), and rethink the ban. I admit my mistake I did not ask for the bot status (already approved on cs wiki). Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

.. well, I was too excited to fix these nasty URL's, but have now stopped and I'm going through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval. —Mykhal (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mykhal: I'm not sure what language "cs wiki" is, but their decisions have absolutely no bearing here. That bot is not approved and should not have been ran without you seeking approval. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not get any new info from your recent post :/ . —Mykhal (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

.. so could you please fix the ban reason? Thanks, —Mykhal (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I will fix the block log upon bot approval. For now, you can point administrators to this conversation so they can see your unwillingness to get approval immediately (it seems you have still failed to seek approval too). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a (fairly vague) BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MykhalBot, but it hasn't been properly transcluded yet. Mykhal, please read through the WP:BOTPOL if you haven't already. As you've no doubt realised, this isn't the Czech Wikipedia and we do some things differently here. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Marvin Compper

Hello Coffee, not sure if you're around to semi-protect Marvin Compper. I have requested this a RFPP, but it might be a while before it's looked at. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Got it! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello there, why you was declined my request on WP:PERM#NPR. I am now more experienced. Please re-review my contributions and add to the group. I want help out in NPP. Please. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hmm...I see something very resemblant to hat-collecting....Wondering how wrong I am?! Winged Blades^Godric 16:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Small request

Regarding your message to me at RFPP: I apologize if this is patronizing but I collaborate a lot better when others avoid getting needlessly confrontational, which to a tiny extent includes snippy language like "Do you care to explain..." and whatnot. "Would you explain..." or "Can you explain..." would have worked just as well. I know that's me being thin-skinned but if you weren't an admin, I wouldn't have responded to that all. CityOfSilver 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And, wow, I just noticed you took my PC1 reviewer right. Could I have it back per my explanation at RFPP? CityOfSilver 18:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I used such language quite deliberately: to convey just how badly you've acted here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And, absolutely not. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

MV Seaman Guard Ohio

Can you please revisit the page protection issue, here? More IPs are showing up.--v/r - TP 18:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Protected! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Hanukkah

Hi Coffee. FYI just because I don't say thanks a lot does not mean I'm not thankful a lot. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, there was a long discussion here about how “longstanding content” is handled under discretionary sanctions. It was an interesting discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

See my comments on Civil

at ITN talk under "gratuitous". μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Descontrol (TV series)

Hello, could you hide this editing summary?, it contains insults.--Philip J Fry / talk 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: Got it! Thanks for catching it! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Excess revdels

Greetings Coffee, I'm super happy to see you back online and active. I understand you are battling some disruptive editing at Donald Trump–Russia dossier, but why are 5 months of history now revdel'ed? Last visible version is from 18 July 2017. Fat finger? — JFG ^talk 09:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As you can see from the deletion log, about 300 revisions were deleted, but not by Coffee. Short explanation: someone added an external link to the dossier (a PDF document hosted by Buzzfeed), and Primefac revdel'd all revisions containing the link. This was an unexpected consequence to my request to revdel a handful of revisions on the article talk page because of copyvios and BLP vios.

Longer discussion here: User talk:BullRangifer#Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier Politrukki (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the explanation, guys. And sorry for pointing my fat finger to the wrong person! — JFG ^talk 12:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Coffee!!


Hi Coffee, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:BlaccCrab

Hi Coffee. You recently blocked BlaccCrab for edit warring and then further for a rant posted to his talk page after being blocked. The user is now evading their block using 173.69.144.245. They reverted an editor for removing a cover BlaccCrab uploaded (and was notified about being orphaned on their talk page), and reverted an edit on another article as "Vandalism" (even if it wasn't, another common summary by the user). Having interacted with the editor quite a bit, "Which is literally listed right on the image description box" is exactly the way BlaccCrab speaks and it's very much a WP:DUCK action. Ss112 10:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Bagged and tagged! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas!

Hello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Coffee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mail call

Hi Coffee, I've dropped you a note - but of course a holiday is far more important! Worm^TT(talk) 18:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Coffee. I did drop you an email a few weeks back - can you check for it? I've sent a follow up this morning too. Worm^TT(talk) 08:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I'll be checking my email now. Thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It's located here; an angry user who needs to talk to you directly instead of there... I have to notify you per policy, so I did. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: It's closed. He was a sock. *Oshwah tips his toward Coffee*. Good day. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

Thread is here Tazerdadog (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not making this notification personally. I simply forgot. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Josh Bailey

Hello! I hope you're enjoying the holiday season. Thank you for protecting Josh Bailey's page, however as soon as the protection was removed, the IP went back to adding Elite to his webpage. I am currently on vacation and am unable to continually be undoing this IPs work. Is if possible to add the protection back on? Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, I've added that page to my watchlist. Coffee is currently on vacation, but asked me to look at other pages he protected while he was away. If the it continues, I will protect again. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good. Thanks for the quick response. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob 13 has gone ahead and protected it. So even better. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: (edit conflict) Whoops, I was protecting while you were typing that. Since the IP edit came immediately after protection expired, I felt it appropriate to protect it again. Feel free to undo if you feel differently. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: not a problem. I tend to be on the more conservative end of the protection/blocking scale than most people. I have no issues with your protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the continued assistance TonyBallioni! I will still be out of the office, but I dropped in to comment on a few things. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Coffee!

Happy New Year!

Coffee,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion at AN.

Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Traveling

Fly safe! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate it! And I truly appreciate your help tonight. Even though I'm sure I seemed rather helpless. Apologies if I rubbed you the wrong way. If I could reverse the clock on this one, I would. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Say something

I found that there are IP tracking my editors these days, it seems that I do not want to be found that this is the same person. But apparently all have the same edit attribution -rollback..--O1lI0 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Some IP tracks me

When I was blocked I noticed that there were some IPs that tracked my edits and went to wikis in other languages, such as Malay and Japanese, and now these IPs seem like they want to keep track of and make edit war.--O1lI0 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN/C

Hi - could you re-post Carillion, please - I've fixed 90% of the issue and the rest is perfectly within policy regarding primary sources. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Absolutely! Thank you so much for the quick fixes!!! Before I repost it, I noticed this comment at ERRORS: [8]. I kind of agree with their idea for the blurb, do you think that change would be contentious or just plain helpful to non-UK readers? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in two minds - it is the second biggest construction firm in the UK, but that's only part of its business as well. If you can re-post it in its original form, I'll have a look. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:  Done Please let me know what you decide! As a US reader I had never heard of the company and didn't truly understand the ramifications at first even. Big story indeed! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to change it to mention construction, purely for a bit of context. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Recreate Seyed Mohammad Hosseini (presenter)?

Hi Coffee, I just saw that Seyed Mohammad Hosseini's page has been deleted based on notability guidelines. There are two recent articles about him, one in the Bloomberg, and the other in the Daily Beast . Also there are many old and several recent articles about him in Farsi (Persian). For years he has been a very famous TV personality in Iran, but what makes him even further notable is his recent political activism in the US, especially in the wake of the 2017–18 Iranian protests . I think maybe these recent developments and mentions in US media outlets meet the notability guidelines to grant recreating the wiki page. What do you think? Best. Alwaysf (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure

Greetings Coffee: I'm a bit curious about your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe, where you seem to come across that all of the sources are local in nature. However, this is not the case. For example, this source (pp. 52–63) is published by Oxford University Press, which is based in Oxford, England and is "the largest university press in the world". Not seeing how this could be deemed a local source, because it is not. Furthermore, several contributors to the discussion stated that the subject meets WP:AUD, as per this book source. Would you be willing to re-open the discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: The issue isn't that your argument wasn't taken into account, the issue is that the consensus at the discussion did not appear to agree with the concept of the rest of the sources, which to my understanding were all local (even the pieces in The News & Observer), as signs of notability. The commentators at the discussion appeared to mostly state that actually pointed to a lack of notability. WP:AUD does not state that one source in a University publication, albeit a highly esteemed one, is all that is required for an article to be considered notable... it says that at least one source is required outside of local coverage to determine if there is notability at all. This is a bit of a tricky one of course, but with several arguments for retention making only claims of "regional" coverage, which was actually not, those had to be discounted for the most part. I would be willing to potentially relist the discussion for a third time if that still feels necessary to you though. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. Yes, I would prefer a relisting at this time, as per all of the above, including your commentary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads up, you reversed your close but didn't undelete the page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Sorry, I was in the middle of typing out the relisting commentary. I'm not always as fast as my name might have you believe. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick follow-up, Coffee. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wasn't sure if you saw it is all :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Another AFD

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance_needed_at_AfD --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Already replied there, but thank you for the additional heads up! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your block of BlaccCrab

Hi Coffee. You blocked the user BlaccCrab for continued edit warring last month and then revoked his talk page access for aspersions against Wikipedia. I then reported the IP address 173.69.144.245 to you for block evasion by the user, which you then blocked. After the IP was unblocked, BlaccCrab used it again, which I then reported to Ad Orientem, who blocked it nine days ago (January 10) for a month. I believed in the interim time that you or AO extended BlaccCrab's original block for evasion (as much it is not a requirement that admins do so). However, he was unblocked today while the IP remains blocked. Not long after BlaccCrab was unblocked, he's back reverting my edits that were reverts of the IP he used to evade his block: here, here and reverting another edit of mine on the page he was blocked for edit warring on here. He left me two talk page messages (despite knowing he has been asked not to post there previously) here because I left an edit summary saying he should "still be blocked" (as I believed his block was extended when it wasn't), then when that was removed, casting further aspersions as to why I reverted in the first place (the info was unsourced). I really don't believe the user has learned from the time he was blocked at all. He is back performing at least three reverts directly after being unblocked. Ss112 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Well that's disappointing. The user has now been  Blocked indefinitely. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be very mad. Australia is a "shithole" (I thought it was one of the most livable places?), he hopes I get the crap kicked out of me (for online disagreements, I guess) and thinks I'm not out of the closet (I very much am). Can that maybe be rev del-ed? Ss112 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to how one jerks a beverage off... but the content has been removed from the archive. @Ss112: Please let me know if more of this behavior pops up from another IP. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's already popped up again: an IP reverted me on Migos discography (a page BlaccCrab used to edit) and edited Culture II with a very BlaccCrab-like summary. IP 2604:2000:D05A:CC00:41A8:88E4:53D7:3442 also geolocates to the same area of the US BlaccCrab's user page says he lived in. Ss112 23:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Take care

	Get better and get back to your amazing self soon!
	I wish you a speedy recovery. Get well soon.  samee  talk 15:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Samee: Thank you very much! The flu is still with me (two 14 hour flights made me catch probably 200 people's germs) but I'm fighting it as much as I can. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Take rest and have plenty of fluids.  samee  ^talk 15:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

YGM

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

I sent you something a couple days back; could you confirm if you received it? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please acknowledge this message if possible, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

DS question

Hello Coffee.

Could you have a look here [9] our "resident involved Admin" {{ping}MelanieN}} who has been doing a heroic and saintly job helping to keep things orderly on the Donald Trump and other politics articles, has pretty clearly identified an instance of @Anythingyouwant: gaming the Consensus sanction at that article. This user is in my opinion a very aggressive (but artful) POV editor who's previously been sanctioned for disrupting American Politics articles and needs further attention to the letter and spirit of the sanctions. Thanks as always for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Coffee and SPECIFICO. S your ping had a stray bracket in it (a mistake I've been known to make) so I will take this opportunity to ping @MelanieN: so she can see this message. Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I mess those up sometimes. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette. As it happens I did see it since I watch Coffee's talk page. For that matter I saw it twice since I also watch Anything's. Just call me nosy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Let's call you Rosie. 🌹 SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm proud to say that I am so nosy, the following "talk page stalker" tag was invented just for me: ^{( Buttinsky)} --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I update its doc to reflect that? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL! No, thanks. Just leave it in User:Atsme's name, she created it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Make use of it and use it often - you know what they say about "use it or lose it". ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump protection

I don't think there needs to be a large notice at the top on the protection (did you mean to put the topicon?); also there hasn't been any real editing after Anythingyouwant's changes were reverted so unsure of the need of this protection while reviewing the edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Feel free to make the icon small (forgot to check that). I'll be removing the protection very soon... as once as I get a response from Anythingyouwant. The protection is currently to ensure no one else games it further (and to prevent additional changes from getting made to the area he moved) until he fixes his gaming. If he doesn't do it on his own, I'll step in and revert the change myself then remove the protection and he's going to be facing a month long topic ban. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The change was already reverted; can't make the icon small as not an admin and so can't edit the page :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the diff of the revert back FYI Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: (edit conflict) Haha, I thought you were an administrator this whole time. Well look at me being ridiculous today. I saw his moves but can you point me to the diff where it was reverted already? ... I see you've posted it, thanks! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant's ill-conceived edit was reverted and I think the tenor on the talk page is that everyone else will respect the status quo until a clearer picture of consensus can be determined. There should be no further need for page protection.- MrX 🖋 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I had to implement a topic-ban first on the user... as that is done, the page is once again open. Happy editing, and sorry for the inconvenience! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Coffee. I appreciate your help with these articles.- MrX 🖋 19:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my request to enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision

Per the directions you gave me, I am requesting that you reconsider my topic ban. My request for reconsideration is here. Please respond to it one way or the other, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Coffee, I hope you don't mind that I have appealed the week-long sanction, see here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

At AE, I replied to your comment of 10:05, 23 January 2018 but messed up the ping. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Email request

Please contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Thank you. Katie^talk 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Emails have been sent in. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much...=

...for your kind words, first of all. They're greatly appreciated.

Thanks also for the alert. I don't think I'll have any trouble - most of what I do in that realm is gnome-related work, anyhow - but give me a shout if you catch anything. I do have a tendency, sometimes, to stumble into something without quite meaning to. :-)

Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I doubt that you will have issues either, being our most prolific contributor in the history of the site! I just always like to make sure all editors/admins/etc are aware of the stuff surrounding certain topics. I'll be sure to let you know if there's any issues, however unlikely that is. Thank you once again for all that you do here. You're someone to look up to! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's very wise - always better to be safe than sorry.

And stop it, you're making me blush. :-) And red really isn't my color. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for helping to protect the 2018 Women's March article. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this what you intended for stabilizing the article?

In the shutdown article numerous edits were challenged and here the consensus and work of numerous editors were undone[10]. I reverted it but thought better of it after immediate threat that it was a DS violation. I can't imagine the intent of 1RR and no challenged restorations would be to allow this while the discussion continues. If so, some more thought needs to be made to thwart those that are gaming the system. Wholesale reversion is the exact type of edit warring that destabilizes these articles and makes them battlegrounds. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, DHeyward. 1) You violated 1RR repeatedly on the article 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert (self-reverted)

2) You made changes to original article text. I challenged them. You blind reverted them (didn't even do me the courtesy of distinguishing between my edits), violating the "consensus required" provision. IF the discussion continues then we go back to before you made your controversial changes until we get consensus (which you're not going to get, seeing as how all these edits are a bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)

Now. This is *exactly* what you got your topic ban for, trying to skirt around the 1RR and the consensus required restriction and... yup, "game the system". You *just* managed to get out of a topic ban on a technicality (and what, four? appeals? Three of which were unsuccessful?). Do you really think it's a good idea to go to an admin's talk page and highlight your own disruption? If I were you, I'd just count myself lucky that no one caught your 1RR violation(s) before they got removed and keep my head down. Find another topic area for awhile or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

AE Appeal

Per the editor's request, I've copied their appeal to ae: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Avisnacks SQL^{Query me!} 19:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Block of Avisnacks

Thank you for agreeing to reduce the block length of Avisnacks, but looking at their block log I think you've made an error in implementing it. You reblocked with an expiration time of 16:17, 29 January 2018 which looks to be the same as the original expiration time, rather than 16:17, 23 January 2018 which would be 24 hours after the original block? I may be misreading it though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thanks for catching that... it apparently is because of how I ordered the date and time, so the system didn't take the new expiration as I had intended. I have now  Fixed the error, the block will expire in about 4 hours now. Thanks again!!! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Put yourself up for recall

Based on this nasty edit summary alone, you ought to put yourself up for recall. It's obvious that my edit was one single minute after the section was closed, so obviously I did not know it was closed, and the edit was merely a trivial tweak. Nitpicking and attacking seems to be your modus operandi. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I think a block is in order for this personal attack, and his overall attitude after the AE decision. I'll let you decide. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a six month block for this amazing edit would be most appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I am not going to block you for this, but I strongly suggest that you find something other to do than picking fights. The AE discussion is over. Let's all move on. Sandstein 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: (edit conflict) Never mind, I've made the block myself. They continued to disrupt AE, and apparently think this type of behavior (like above and at their talk page in response to your ban extension) is acceptable. This is incredibly disappointing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Much as I hate to stick my nose in this, I really want to say that while I believe your actions throughout this have been correct, with no serious blunders, and I feel that the edit summary mentioned above is perfectly understandable, all things considered, I also believe that it doesn't hurt anything or establish a bad precedent to allow the correction of a typo in a close discussion. I wouldn't do it myself, but I really don't see any harm, and am politely asking you to let the correction stand. Thanks for listening. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @MPants at work: If it is seen by the community-at-large as something that needs fixing to such degree, I am not going to stand in the way. I was merely enforcing the normal (no edits allowed to closed discussions) standard I've always done at AE/ANI/AFD/etc. But, if in this case you believe it would be best to let it stand, then yes. I am fine with that. I really appreciate how nicely you asked this... brought a smile to my face today for the first time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Have you really just blocked someone for correcting part of their sentence ? ..... Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than to revert and then block someone all over a sentence being corrected?. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can I please unblock Anythingyouwant? I have a silly hope that this need not spiral out of control. He was only correcting a spelling mistake. People do that all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: That was only one of the reasons for the block, the message on his talk page explains it a bit more. Mostly, the problem was with his responses to Sandstein and then myself here. The attitude indicated that he was unwilling to contribute in a non-hostile manner, for at least today. If he can convince you that he will discontinue his personal attacks/casting of aspersions, however, I am completely fine with you removing the block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • [see editnotice] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm leaving this in the hand of Floquenbeam now. I suggest we all let an uninvolved admin make the best call here. I see the block as preventative as the editor was continuously hostile. Others may see it differently, so I'm removing my hands from this situation at this point. @TonyBallioni and GoldenRing: both of you would be good to have looped in on this one too. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)