This is an archive of past discussions about User:Boing! said Zebedee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

October 2016

Block evasion by Starkiller88

User Starkiller88 is back and avoiding his block: . Any way to contain him? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall enough from that long ago to be able to identify him, and I don't have the time to investigate now, sorry. If you can provide obvious evidence, ANI might work, otherwise I think it would have to be at SPI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by BeyonderGod

He seems to be back to edit some of his favourite topics about supposedly "omnipotent" characters within fiction again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:A000:60C1:800:F93A:6859:9173:B101 David A (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly him - blocked for block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. However, now he is using another IP address. Perhaps it would be best to permanently lock all of the pages that he likes from anonymous IP editing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:A000:60C1:800:91A1:10EF:44A4:7BB2 David A (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

He'll have a whole IPv6 address range allocated, so we need someone who knows how to do a range block. If you leave it with me I'll find someone who can help, though I might not have time until tomorrow now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help. David A (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Michael Hardy is reminded that:
1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Winterysteppe representation

Do you mind me asking why I can't represent another user? I feel it goes against Wikipedia's standard of Wikipedia:Civilty, which states, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You're new here, so I suggest you spend some time learning the ropes and how things work before trying to do things your own way - when you have enough experience, you'll surely find out how to suggest policy changes and get procedures modified by consensus along the way. In the meantime, if you want to learn something about how blocking and unblocking work, you can have a look at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK, but I strongly suggest you just leave the blocking/unblocking to those who know how it all works. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to change the rules later. Please ignore my recent edit, as it was just posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Luke 1021 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajipalani (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! But also...

This IP may need to be blocked too. I'm not sure what he does with his IPs or if blocking any of them does any good. I think Bish is the most experienced with this matter. The two IPs are not in the same range at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone has got that one too. And yes, Bish knows that stiff - one of these days I must learn about range blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick response to ANI message

Hi there. Thank you for your prompt reply to the ANI message I wrote, but I thought I should clarify on the following point you made: "As long as the revert is done with a suitable edit summary, there's no problem."

I agree, and I had no problem with their reverting of my own revisions, but they used the Twinkle tool the last time they did so, with the only message being "nope". I had no idea what Twinkle (TW) was, but when I saw it is used against abusive posters and can lead to a ban, I became worried, in particular since my edit was in good-faith and their use of TW was not in line with the protocol laid down for it, namely that it ought to have an appropriate message attached. A mundane image change was not I think a proper use of it, and I did not want to end up having my IP banned as a result of that user using the TW tool wrongly, hence why I made the ANI post.

I apologize if that was unwarranted. As you noted, there is now a talk section on it, and I will strive toward a consensus position being reached, and hope that user will do the same rather than trying to TW me unjustifiably.

You can remove this after reading it of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Koznyshev (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vladimir Koznyshev: Twinkle is actually used for all sorts of purposes, not for just dealing with abuse, because it helpfully automates a lot of common actions - I often use it for leaving Welcome messages for new arrivals, for example. So you don't need to worry -- the fact that Twinkle was used to revert your change won't in itself make people think badly of your motivation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion on "involved"

I appreciate your input at WP:AN on my questions about "involved". Thank you. I'd like to bend your ear for a moment if I may. You mention that reversion of clear policy violations should be fine to avoid INVOLVED issues, but what about clear-cut community guideline violations or POV issues? I find myself interacting in articles (Indian soap operas, for instance) where users seem to be going out of their way to deviate from community norms. Some examples:

There were a bunch of Indian soap opera articles where people kept silently changing the season numbering from 1 to 01 or 2 to 02, in contravention of MOS:NUM.
Users were misusing the |followed_by= parameter of the television Infobox to indicate the name of the series that replaced an 8pm series in the 8pm time slot, when the parameter is intended to indicate the name of a series that followed another in a franchise (Star Trek: Voyager followed_by Star Trek: Enterprise)
Users keep adding "Former cast" sections to television cast listings, which contravenes WP:TVCAST. (The guideline wants cast organized per how they were introduced in the series, with new members being added to the bottom of the list, and adding cast to a "former" section eliminates any clue about whether or not the cast member/character was part of the Main or Recurring cast.)
Users keep deleting prose content from cast lists, again in contravention of WP:TVCAST. An editor might add some descriptive text: "John Doe as Ralph Jones - Ralph, a thief, is Bradley's cousin" Then someone (typically a silent IP) will come by and strip away the information Ralph, a thief...
This guy describing a film as a "huge success".

These are but a few examples. I started adding Indian entertainment articles to my watchlist because I thought it was an area I could oversee with minimal involved-ment. I'm not Indian, I don't watch or care about the TV shows or movies that I edit. I'm at these articles solely because they need babysitting so that they adhere to basic community guidelines. It's gets frustrating when I find myself dealing with silent editors who appear to be completely ignorant about, and apathetic to, what a basic TV article should look like. They're seemingly going out of their way to muck them up. I've tried posting detailed explanations on talk pages, educating individual editors, but to little avail. An editor once explained to me that INVOLVED becomes an issue when dealing with disputes over content, but as far as I can tell, everything is a dispute over content. The guy calling a film a "huge success" is a clear-cut violation of NPOV, but it's also a content issue. The removal of prose from a cast list is a content issue, but it's also indistinguishable from vandalism. Maybe there is more nuance to INVOLVED where I'm looking for black-and-white. If I find an Indian TV article and clean it up so that it adheres to basic TV article standards, does that make me involved? Should I not improve the article? Can one make improvements to an article and remain uninvolved? I've only been adminning for a little over a year, so I want to be sure I'm doing things properly. Anyhow, your thoughts are appreciated and I know I'm asking a lot of you. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thought-provoking stuff! I need to give it some thought, but I'll definitely come back to you about it - I've had Involved accusations regarding Indian topics myself before now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thought-provoking indeed, but to me, Cyphoidbomb, the most interesting thing about this is your statement that you've only been adminning for a little over a year. It feels to me as though you've been an admin for far longer than that.

As with most Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no clear answer to what is involved and what isn't. I tend to work on the assumption that dealing with anything which almost anyone with a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia would regard as inappropriate editing, rather than issues which are matters of opinion, does not make one involved, which tends to include obvious and unambiguous breaches of policies or guidelines. Very occasionally I do hold back from making edits to a page because I am anticipating that I may be going to take admin action, but that is rare. In most cases a better approach, I think, is to go ahead with doing what I think needs doing, and if I then have any doubt about whether my actions make me involved, I ask another administrator to assess the case. (I seem to remember that Boing!... has once or twice been that other administrator, but I don't remember any specific example, so I may be wrong.) I think I would regard describing something in an article as "a huge success" as a clear violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and so I would not regard reverting that as making one involved. Issues about the manual of style, however, to me seem more questionable, because they are essentially just preferences in areas where there is room for different views, and there are many exceptions which are generally accepted, so I would be more inclined to think that MOS-related edits might make one "involved". I would not tend to regard you as involved just because you had made one or two trivial changes to comply with the manual of style, but if you had done substantial clean up then I might. However, if in doubt, hold back (either from editing or from adminning) to avoid problems. You probably don't want to become one of those admins who are torn into little pieces by an angry mob of fanatical "all-admins-are-evil" people at AIV, nor even one of the tiny number of admins that have been blocked by so-called "JamesBWatson" for abuse of admin powers. (As far as I remember, the "tiny number" is two, and to stop you from losing a lot of sleep as you worry yourself sick that you may become number three, I should perhaps emphasise that the two that I remember were both hundreds of miles over the line between uninvolved and involved, they were not in the debatable areas that you are talking about. Indeed, the very fact that you have asked this question indicates that you care, whereas the victims of my vicious attacks were admins who don't care, so long as what they do serves their purpose.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I've now seen the thread at ANI that led to your post above. I suppose it would have made sense to have read that before posting here. I would say that reverting someone's "refactoring, plagiarism" would be dealing with matters which are clearly unacceptable, and so I would not regard that as preventing admin action. However, when it comes to someone calling you biased, in 99% of cases it would be safer to get another admin to deal with it. Even if the accusation is blatantly unfounded, the fact that you are the subject of the accusation really makes you involved. Even there, though, I am not sure there might not be cases where the accusation was so obviously part of trolling or other totally stupid editing that I might make an exception. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: As always, I appreciate your input, thank you. I'll have to noodle this some more. Yes, I do care about the issue, as you've noticed...I'm just trying to figure out the nuances. Most of what we do as admins is babysitting. The Indian TV/film article world is so full of marketing sock rings and whatnot... Nobody ever speaks, and some of the changes are just astoundingly moronic. Augh, it's really irritating... Anyway, thanks for your opinions! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Msg

Hello. thanks for your message and guidance to me. Jkouhyar (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope it is helpful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Re:Today's vandal

Thanks and I did request my userpage and guestbook get indefinite autoconfirmed protection on WP:RFPP actually. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Perfect timing actually. This IP just started editing my userpage after you left your message. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I see someone has already protected your user page, and I've just protected your guestbook. Your talk page can also be temporarily protected if needed - it's not ideal to stop IPs posting, but I do it sometimes with my own and I have an alternative talk page that vandals can use (and which can be completely zapped from time to time). You've probably seen the notice you get when you edit this page, and you could always set up something similar if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Boing! Hope you're well - and sorry to jump in on an unrelated thread here! Just wondering how you set up an edit notice on your Talk? It'd be quite handy as it might put a stop to some of my, shall we say less WP:CLUE'd up, visitors? Mike1901 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine and dandy, thanks ;-) If you edit your own talk page, up at the top right you should see a couple of red links - "Group notice" and "Page notice". The "Page notice" should link to User talk:Mike1901/Editnotice, so just go ahead and create that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks - done! Mike1901 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Stoped

Hello. user Softlavender no stoped creazy worked. removed all text personal opinion. So don't tell me. by Jkouhyar (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Hi! Thank you for unblocking me. I'll be a better person than I was before. I'll help make Wikipedia wonderful! j04--J04 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

New SPI?

Have you seen the discussions about 173.238.79.44 (talk · contribs) and ItaloCelt84 (talk · contribs)? See User talk:Ivanvector. A lot of similarities with Veritas2016 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 11:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiven2240

Hi Boing!. Just a heads-up as I forgot to ping you when I posted this to ANI. Despite your warning, Tiven2240 has unfortunately not stopped using Page Curation: this is from a few hours ago, and they have been following it up with advice to the page creator as well. Given their competence issues with their own draft article (as seen on their user talk page) it does not seem like the best idea, really. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It seems Tiven2240 also issued a BLP Prod for an article that actually did have a source, and posted a warning about it on the creator's talk page. I've tried to limit the damage by removing the notification and giving the new user a welcome template instead, and I have issued a 48 hour block for Tiven2240. Please let me know if you see them doing more NPP once the block is over (even if they actually get it right) and I will escalate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

IP at Talk:Race (human categorization)

Any IP editing race articles whose IP address is Birkbeck College is the racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

change of the content regarding

Hi,

I have changed some content on the Pasi Caste. It seems that the earlier version was not accurate discription of the Caste. The Pasi Caste is uniformly spread to many parts of the country . It has never reared pigs . So kindly change the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun4380 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policies on sourcing at WP:RS - we go on what reliable sources say, not on what you personally assert without sources. And the source you removed (Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation. Routledge. pp. 8, 23. ISBN 978-1-31755-952-8) clearly says "They are followed by the Pasi community; a caste of pig-rearers". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tu maza Jeev

Heya I am back with a question about a draft I had created Here I have been sending request to accept it but then too it isn't from a long time . There are comments from members and I have solved all of their doubts but then too they don't send it to main space if u think it's proper than u move it to the required place. Orelse explain me what to do next as I feel u expert in such matter's --Tiven gonsalves 07:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

@Tiven2240: As it says in the "Review Waiting" box, "This may take 2–3 weeks", so please be patient and wait for it to be reviewed again - the reviewer will move it to main space if they're satisfied that you have resolved the outstanding issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I should add that "Tu Maza Jeev has a wide of whole working hard about its promotion as it is the first of its kind" is incomprehensible - I really can't understand what you are trying to say. If you do not rewrite that sentence so it can be understood, the next review is also very likely to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, do not move your own drafts to main space again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Revoke TPA?

Wow, just wow.... Mike1901 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, done, thanks. This is a troll who's been doing this kind of thing recently, and WP:RBI seems to be the best way to deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Boing! said Zebedee. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

IP back, have a new target

They have chosen a new target, it's the same IP user again. I've watched their edits today to make sure, You can see their tell tale sign of accusing another user of Vandalism to get an edit war started [here], this started earlier today. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And [here] is the edit warring, false accusing, IP we all know. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah has got it while I was sleeping ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

Hi, I noticed that you blocked Simon Mugava (talk · contribs) for violating his topic ban, but I noticed that 86.156.47.203 (talk · contribs) later made changes to the Uebert Angel page that are suspiciously similar to Simon Mugava (talk · contribs)'s edits, such as the promotional tone, insisting on misquoting the BBC as calling Angel "young and charismatic" etc.. As a dumb novice editor, I couldn't digest WP:SI so I hope you can look into this instead. Thank you! CherylHew (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I saw and reverted that one. I don't think a sock investigation would be much help right now, as checkusers won't be able to tie an IP to a registered user - and the IP geolocates to London, and I'm reasonably confident that Simon Mugava is himself not in London. For now, I think just keeping and eye on it and reverting (and blocking if necessary) is the way to go - we can always protect the article if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Random Question

So, I notice that most of the questions on this chat page are mainly in a professional manner concerning the upkeep of Wikipedia. Since I am a fairly new user and am unfamiliar with the exact specifications of what talk pages can be used for, I figure I'll just ask my question anyway and receive the proper discipline. This is totally random, but what does your username come from? The name Zebedee is oddly familiar... QuestionWhy

Zebedee [...] appeared, usually summoned by Florence, with a loud "boing" sound, and he usually closed the show with the phrase "Time for bed" - The Magic Roundabout. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Favorite kids show I presume? Creative name for sure, caught my attention QuestionWhy (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Thank you for that

That was a good block, as well as your later action.

Hopefully he calms down a bit before coming back. I was going to keep trying to explain to him that if he wants admin sanctions against Cagwinn the burden is on him to prove that Cagwinn actually insulted, threatened and so on, but now that talk page access is removed it would be inappropriate for me to keep posting there, and probably wouldn't do his mood any good.

I honestly don't mind the swearing or SHOUTing so much, so if it had only (or primarily) been aimed at me I would have asked you not to remove talk page access so I could keep trying to convince him how he could avoid longer blocks, but that's not really for me to decide.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an attempt to help him stop digging, but he's gone on to send me abusive emails and so I've really had no option but to escalate the sanctions - you can see on his talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

YGM (Related to the above) Mike1901 (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I feel a significant measure of responsibility for this. Thanks for taking over to try and put a stop to it. Sorry it didn't quite work out. If need be I am happy to issue an apology to UtherPendrogn and try to amend the situation with them. Otherwise, carry on with the good work. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think everyone has tried their best to defuse things, and I don't think you did anything wrong. From his actions since the block, I really don't see any way back for him now, sadly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

IP user not listening

I have tried explaining to this IP that they can't remove content without a source. They have edit warred over it and violated 3RR. I have explained it on the article talk page and their own after issuing the 3RR warning. They are not getting that without a source they can't just remove content like they are doing at here, I have removed myself from the situation as it's like arguing with a wall. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have proven on the talk page of the article that HIS edits are out of line. See for yourself. He refuses to provide a link. I have provided two showing my edit is the correct one. 101.182.161.253 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As I was not adding content but restoring previously added content that the IP refused to provide a source for showing it was no longer correct I did not need to Provide a source. The IP refused to provide a source showing proof until it was taken to an Admin and they violated 3RR. Instead of acting like they did they instead should have provided a source proving that the content was incorrect in the first place then this issue would not have had to go this far. I recommend that the IP reads wiki policy and learns to provide sources instead of just deleting content from articles and learns to work with other editors instead of acting as they did. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that this user is the one who needs to read wiki policy. I didn't have to show proof, but I chose to as he wasn't listening and he was refusing to provide proof of what was and is a change from The Hardys (as they have always been known since they dropped the "Boys") to the Broken Hardys which started this year only. So the onus was on him to provide the source. He wanted the change. I was restoring the original content. 101.182.161.253 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, IP was removing content that was previously sourced by other users which added the content. IP removed this content which I then restored as IP refused to provide a source it was wrong and just kept deleting it. If they would have sourced the removal showing it was incorrect, this would have been avoided, instead they acted as they did and violated 3RR when they had a source. This IP clearly did this purposely when they had a source from the beginning and knew it and instead of providing it choose to act as they did. As you know Boing wrestling articles have been targeted for months by vandalizing IPs so asking an IP to provide a source per wiki policy for content they are removing is not wrong. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There was no source attached to the Broken Hardys claim. This user was edit warring. The end. 101.182.161.253 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

IP violated 3RR, edit warred, and provided no source until they were informed an Admin was going to be contacted, knowing full well they caused the incident by refusing to provide a source showing that removing the content wasn't Vandalism as the content was added in October here by another user. Clearly users in the WP:PW project agreed with this as they WERE referred to as The Broken Hardys on TNA programing and PPV or it would have been changed months ago. IP clearly did this purposely to cause conflict on the article when they could have provided their source from the start without having to violate 3RR showing Broken was not being used now. *Please note this IP was confirmed as a sock here and was blocked here less than 1 month ago. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Edit warring"

Regarding your admin protection of Pizzagate disambiguation page:

I guess by the timing that you are referring to my one edit? If so, I am curious whether you can explain how this counts as edit warring. Do you think that justifies the extra-high protection level? --Nanite (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no, not your one edit at all. I certainly do not mean to suggest that you, personally, are edit warring, and the timing was coincidental - I could have done the same within the last 24 hours or the next 24 hours, whoever was the last to edit. I've just been watching the back-and-forth at that disambig page for days, I've observed the trials of lower levels of protection, and I came to the conclusion that full protection was necessary because repeated revert-revert-revert is absolutely not the way to resolve any disagreement. It needs community consensus, and the only way to achieve that is by talk page discussion - and I'll be happy to change it either way myself if there's a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK, no worries and thanks for the explanation. I had thought that my foot had accidentally stepped on a hornet's nest, but apparently the nest had already exploded. :-) (And, yargh, how can I get into an argument over one word!?) --Nanite (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit by Любослов Езыкин

Greetings! I'm curious to know why you have reverted this edit; it was made by a linguist known for his contributions to linguistics-related articles and seems to be completely correct. FullertonCA (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I saw it as a continuation of a recent edit war there - please feel free to revert. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

John Galea

May have fluffed the talk page ping, so apologies if this is redundant, but the J P Galea article you G5'd earlier is now back at John Paul Galea with IPs and SPAs repeatedly removing any maintenance and speedy templates added to it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I'm tempted to block them all as socks, but it's probably better to wait for the SPI for a bit more support. And yes, please feel free to drop me a note here any time if it happens again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the Sloppyart111 is clearly the same one - account names ending in 111 or 1111 seem to be a favourite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Onyedika Chuke

The other significant contribution is this which is a quote from a HuffPost blog. What are my options to delete the article I created? Can I contact the other editor for his permission or copy the texts in his sandbox? A help would be highly appreciated. Regards, Olimahhoskm (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Olimahhoskm: I've looked again and given it a bit more thought, and with the one extra addition being a quote rather than any original writing, I think it's probably not significant enough to deny a G7 deletion after all. So I have deleted the article as you requested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

o.O

... Well, alright then. That settles that. Comma inserted, confusion dispelled, discussion hatted, block avoided? I mean this as an FBDB, btw. I get slightly involved in the content of the dispute often because if you resolve the content you resolve the dispute. Even though WP:DRN is that away and not WP:ANI this away. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for not continuing the content argument at ANI. Touching on the content can be helpful in the context of behaviour, but beyond that it only spreads the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, I don't know what an FBDB is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Friendly banter don't block. I have only ever seen EEng use it... so that may be a reason why. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request

Can you do me the favour to shortly say in an edit summary that you comment an oppose in an RfA, as opposed to oppose? Thank s for the comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my reply in the Oppose section - yes, good point, without an edit summary it could look like I'm opposing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for an AfD closure

Hi, Boing! I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glise. Not only is it so far 100% "delete" but also the author of the article has accepted deletion, so I reckon it qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G7 (author requests deletion). I feel this is one of the very rare occasions when closure by the nominator would be OK, and I am tempted to delete the article and close the AfD, but just in case anyone might object, I wonder if you would look at it, and do the close and delete if you agree with me? If you don't agree, it won't be a big deal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, sounds sensible - done. And yes, I think deletion by the nominator would have been fine too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

hiding

more for you to hide - if you don't hide that post I will request you replace my post - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_V&diff=755519893&oldid=755506412 Govindaharihari (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request help

What should I do since I forgot the password of the old account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.84.27 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You could start by telling me who you are. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Boing! said Zebedee: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^grotto ^presents 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Our recent interaction

Hi Boing, I just wanted to inquire on our recent interaction. I did not fully comprehend the violence of your reaction to my question to admins on my talk page, nor your subsequent tampering with it. I saw you threatened with blocking me indefinitely but did not really explain for what reason. Nor did I see that you gave a policy reason for censoring a comment on my talk page (as all other admins seem to do when they do delete something from wikipedia). Was it because I was under a block at the time or am I generally allowed to mention that another editor has been subject to a topic ban under another editor id ? I noticed someone else brought up this exact point during my ANI and no one seemed to notice or care. I have also looked for the policy regarding this and cannot find it. It would be useful to know. Also I think, as an admin, when someone writes under their own talk page seeking for advice from admins on what to do as per wikipedia policy, the normal response is to inform them on how to behave rather than threaten and block the talk page without a reason. I hope you understand my concerns and position and I also hope you will respond calmly with an explanation rather than as per our prior exchange. I am aware I may have behaved in a way contrary to policy and strive not to do so in the future. Kind regards,Asilah1981 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are good reasons why editors sometimes have their accounts renamed, and it is often a reason that is not suitable for public explanation or that can be divulged to you. Some relevant policy/guideline pages include WP:PRIVACY, WP:OUTING and WP:BEANS, but though I do know the reason for at least one of those username changes, I have said all I am able to say to you. All I ask is that when an admin, who understands the situation, asks you not to publicize someone's previous usernames, you should respect that and not do so again - such things have caused some editors real life harm in the past. If you ever feel you really do need to discuss a previous username when you have been asked not to publicize it, please do it by email - with the relevant admin, or ArbCom, or whomever is appropriate at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the explanation. I will not mention the past name of the editor again. Although should aggressive POV pushing on the same articles persist in the same same level of intensity, I can limit myself to mentioning the topic of the result of past Arbitration without publicizing the actual User Name. I understand Wikipedians have the right to a "clean sheet" and start over, but if the purpose for doing so is to continue the same behavior on the same articles, then it is something to be brought up. When I look at lists of permanently blocked editors, they include a long list of past usernames and descriptions of their behavior over a long period. Would they, theoretically, be allowed for all information on them to be deleted, should they so request, only to continue the same behavior without admins having any way to detect them? In this particular case, we are dealing with editors who have followed a co-ordinated strategy over a span of 8 years, and for whom a ban was lifted conditionally. This is what concerns me. I would post the link here to what I'm talking about here, but perhaps you would prefer me to send it by email.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning a clean sheet shows you have completely missed Boing!'s point, which was unrelated to the idea of a clean sheet. As for your other arguments, they are in part addressed at Wikipedia:Clean start. CMD (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the rename that I know of was not, as far as I know, a clean start related to any previous sanction or misbehaviour, and so "to continue the same behavior on the same articles" does not appear to be applicable. Secondly, no, please do not send me the information you suggest, as I am not investigating your dispute. If you wish to raise a dispute, please use the appropriate channels (see WP:DR for the recommended dispute resolution steps), and if you have any relevant non-public information you should then pass it on privately to whichever admin or ArbCom member (or whoever, as appropriate) should choose to take up the investigation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I was not aiming to send you non-public information, simply the resolution of the arbcom which is public (just google both the user names which you erased from my talk page if you are interested). I will not pursue this matter further, not to worry. Thanks for your time.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Akshay Bardapurkar

Did I do the initiation of WP:PROD correctly? --1Veertje (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine, but be aware that the article creator is allowed to contest the PROD (as is anyone else) and it would then need to be taken to WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Das osmnezz

Hi Boing! said Zebedee. I came accross Das osmnezz from this post at User talk:Explicit#Image deletion by Sir Sputnik. I noticed that Das osmnezz was blocked and then unblocked by you at the end of October, In his/her unblock request, Das osmnezzz stated Please unblock me-Wikipedia page creating was one of my favorite things to do. I am unblocked, you will never have to warn me or block me again;I will edit/create articles that enable Wikipedia to gain (sport)information and follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines incredibly carefully & to my best ability., but from looking at his/her user talk page that does not seem to have been the case. In addition, to problems creating/editing articles and categories, image files uploaded by Das osmnezz such as File:Fc fleury 91.png and File:Strykers FC.png have also be flagged for issues. I certainly don't want to bite a new editor, especially one who seems to be trying hard in good faith, but the account is likely going to end up being blocked for one reason or another if it keeps accumulating warnings, etc. Any suggestions on how to best approach this because the template warnings do not seem to be having their desired effect? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time to look at this right now, but I'll try later or maybe tomorrow. Perhaps a friendly word is what's needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Boing! said Zebedee!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!

Thanks for helping me out. New to all this and very much learning by doing!

best wishes of the season and all that! :-)

best regards

Do I dare to eat a peach?

Happy to help, and Humbug and all that to you too ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

JuanRiley block evasion

He's back. (N0n3up (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC))

It's his own talk page, so I'd just ignore. Trolls seek attention, so just deny them it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Although this could probable become problematic to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry Christmas!!

Hello Boing: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, all your help to improve and to expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

reverted update

please help me understand WHY you reverted updates?

Vacuum5 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vacuum5. Your edit was reverted because it was promotional in nature. All edits must be in a neutral point of view, and your edits were not. See WP:PROMO for more details. (talk page stalker) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, puffery like "Brian was not only terrific defensively, be he also was amazing at the plate" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which should be written in a neutral factual tone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So, does it read correctly now?

Vacuum5 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yolanda Araceli León Rosas

Araceli de León La referencia a la actriz mexicana es incompleta y carece del idioma correcto al que pertenece su nacionalidad.

Disculpa si he de insistir en la edición de la pagina debido a que mi nacionalidad corresponde a la misma que la actriz citada, por lo que en atento respeto a su memoria te pido se use la referencia en español latino y se complete todo el historial de su filmografía, gracias por comprender http://es.doblaje.wikia.com/wiki/Araceli_de_León muchas gracias por tu atencion, saludos y feliz navidad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey Endymion (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Translated above using Google translate

"Yolanda Araceli León Rosas (Araceli de Leòn) The reference to the Mexican actress is incomplete and lacks the correct language to which her nationality belongs.

I apologize if I have to insist on the editing of the page because my nationality corresponds to the same as the actress quoted, so in attentive respect to your memory I ask you to use the reference in Latin Spanish and complete all the history of His filmography, thanks for understanding http://en.doblaje.wikia.com/wiki/Araceli_de_León many thanks for your attention, greetings and Merry Christmas."

Apologies if I overstepped. (talk page stalker)Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Xylouris ensemble speedily deleted

Greetings, I was building the page "Xylouris Ensemble", which has been speedily deleted. I didn't have the chance to justify it, so if you could revert it, that will save me some work. Many thanks and best regards. cerniagigante (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The article as I deleted it showed no indication of how the ensemble satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements for musicians (see WP:NMUSIC), and it had no sources at all apart from the ensemble's own website (see WP:RS). But I'm happy to restore it to your user space for you to work on, and it is now at User:Cerniagigante/Xylouris ensemble. When you believe it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements and it is supported by independent reliable sources, then I suggest you submit it via the WP:AFC procedure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Not sure how to take someone to ANI. Is there special criteria that is needed? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Sorry, I've only just spotted this. All that's really needed is that you have been unable to solve a problem via discussion on a user talk page or article talk page, and you think admin action is needed (except straight vandalism, which would go to WP:AIV, page protection requests to WP:RPP and edit warring to WP:EWN). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Req Tu Maza Jeev

Heya reaching out to you after a long time.!!! Just wanted an advice as I have made an article named Tu Maza Jeev and than there is no use of its draft now. Access draft here what should I do to prevent dublication of of one topic --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 06:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the draft for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Aries009

Can't seem to stop editing and appears to need help to stop. evidence Jim1138 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving you an FYI that he made a follow-up unblock request (after the one you declined) that I reverted, rev del'd, and yanked his talk page access over. My inbox was then shortly graced by a very... uncivil message (lol) from him, which led to DeltaQuad revoking email access and resetting/extending his block. Fun times ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, what a charmer ;-) Time to watch his favourite articles for any reincarnations, I think, and then RBI. (Actually, I'm surprised the block wasn't lifted to indefinite - it will be if I see any more of those personal attacks after it expires.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, and I see I got an abusive email from him too - I'm going to hand out an indef now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised it wasn't more than a week to begin with – but thanks for changing the block to indefinite, even if I found the email that I got from him quite humorous. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivals.com

Why can't I just respond to the GD email you sent to me? And also, an assertion that I'm not neutral needs EVIDENCE. Keep editing the rivals article to show that they have a CS number. Now I want you, genius, to go call that number and tell me that I'm incorrect in saying that they no longer have a CS number and that you have to cancel subs through Yahoo!chat. Also, why are you saying that the racsim I've witness over and over and over and homophobic/anti-gay comments I've seen over and over and over on the forums doesn't exist. You're being ignroant and speaking as if you have knoweldge. THAT IS DANGEROUS STUPIDITY THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManWithAPlan84 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not sent you an email (and I don't know what GD means). And no, you cannot add your own personal claims to an article without reliable sources (see WP:RS), and when they are negative claims your sources need to be especially strong. You provided no sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hi Boing!, Can you please lock down List of WWE personnel? 2 users are edit warring at about 8 reverts a piece now as you can see here there is a discussion on the talk but so far it's not helping and this is getting out of hand. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for 24 hours for edit warring - let me know if they carry on when the blocks expire. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As much as that pains me something had to be done. Thank you, hopefully this will calm them both down. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's only two editors I think it's better to block, so as not to deny others the ability to edit a page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid them getting blocked as they are both very good editors, but you make a good point. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Could I make another revdel request as Asilah1981 is again using my real name. W C M_email 09:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

All sorted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.W C M_email 10:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)