User talk:Boing! said Zebedee: Difference between revisions

I'm only likely to be here intermittently, so if I don't respond promptly and you want any admin or renaming help, please ask someone else. As always, any admin is welcome to modify or reverse any admin actions of mine with no need to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

2018 - Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2017 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2016 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2015 • 2014 2013 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2012 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2011 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2010 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2009 • 2008 • 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hey, I just went to create Best in the World 2006 and noticed that you deleted it back in April since the person who created it was a banned user. Would you mind moving it to my user space to save me the trouble of creating it from scratch? At least this way I have a template to start with. Thanks! - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - it's at User:Galatz/Best in the World 2006. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User talk:Bales Dai

I think Ross11245 created Bales Dai's userpage, while JJMC89 created the Ross11245 account.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Ah yes, I see now, I'd misread it as Ross11245 creating the Bales Dai account. I see JJMC89 created the Bales Dai account apparently on request. We're apparently no closer to understanding what account block they're talking about at User:Bales Dai. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No closer indeed. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but something is a bit funky in Denmark, if you ask me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be safe to assume good faith and unblock these two:

• User:Bales Dai
• User:Ross11245

CC: User:Jpgordon Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to go ahead and unblock them. Jpgordon says it's fine. I hope that this is okay with you. Please say if it is not. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'll keep an eye on their contribs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this looks like the kind of edit a random vandal/troll would make for shits and giggles, given that the last time that particular problem flared up was more than a week before the account was created. Thebow (talk · contribs) was a random troll who had motivation to look through my edit history and find out that I had recently had a conflict with that editor, so it might be them, but then Bbb23 cu-blocked Thebow after MrGilmore was already active. I'm a bit concerned that it might be one of the editors who have been coming after me over the last few months as a result of my "pro-deletionist" activities, even though only one of them is currently blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm sure it's not just random - and the "MrGilmore" name seems like an obvious joe job. Without some evidence to id the sockmaster, I think a CU request would be probably seen as just fishing at this point, so I think RBI is probably the way to go at the moment. I have your talk page on my watchlist, so I should see any further attempts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) It's Jenulot. Probably will come back again, best to just block, revert and ignore. Alex Shih (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few minutes ago you blocked "KateCorrigan257" acc indeff upon my report, and as I understood, you asked me if last edits are actually reverts of vandalism - so, yes, I am reverting those disruptions made by following acc. instances: "KateCorrigan257" is first vandalism edit, followed by "SirHuefordDuchovich", "66.226.51.28", "203.184.20.247" and finally "2a00:23c5:8802:a100:453a:c8c4:7f5b:518". I reverted their edits and checked their "global contribution" - all these acc. instances appears to be created for this purpose only and have no prior contributions. Please check them for sock ?! What's interesting is that this person(s) doing this since July 16.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aur%C3%A9ola&target=Aur%C3%A9ola

I'm at a bit of a loss on this one. The editor did some editing back in 2012 and such, came back in a burst that included some vandalism, and now is only editing in their sandbox in a language other than English. Is this appropriate? I wanted to ask you first before reporting. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page reader) It looks like (the beginning of?) a novel in Portuguese. I left them a Uw-webhost note. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Tarage. I think I'd suggest nominating it for speedy deletion as WP:U5. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was enjoying that! Though... creepy pervert eyes floating around? Could that possibly refer to the darwin twins? Has this guy seriously never seen an ichtus, if not a darwinfish? Bishonen | talk 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That's the problem with kids today - no education! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)If you watch 30 Days of Night, and then kinda squint at the two darwinfish, they kinda look like the vampires' eyes (here's an example). Speaking of darwinfish...

P.S. I am totally on drugs right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, all I'm on is a beta blocker ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

......it's the only way to fly  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were all heart. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Firstly, my apologies for trying to add in a piece about a rather good if not notable band, Jarvis Brothers. I must admit the purpose of the post was to try to gain some recognition for them as they are an excellent band and have lived in Broughton all of their lives. They are popular, do have a growing fanbase, and were on ITV's competition finals in May 2018.

I did not read the t&c of Wikipedia so had no idea this wasn't permitted so I'm sorry for that, and for undoing your removal a couple of times. (I just assumed you were some auto removal bot or something)

Regards Heisenberg

No problem, Wikipedia's rules are not at all obvious when you're just getting started. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I leave it in your hands to resolve and tidy up the Barbara situation? You are handling it well so far, are remaining neutral, and appear to have a good understanding of what is going on. There needs at the end of it all to be some clarity on the scope of her topic ban. We struggled during the initial discussion, and needed a second discussion which even then has resulted in unclear wording. I was not the one to bring the matter to ANI - indeed, as I said at the time and earlier today on Barbara's page, I was reluctant to go down the sanction route. Though, having been presented with the body of evidence of widespread concern about her medical and health related editing, and her long term history of confrontation with Flyer, coupled with Barbara's own reluctance to look at alternatives, it was clear that sanctions were needed. I was then, and am now, a reluctant participant in this affair; though then and now I couldn't ignore what was being presented to me. Whatever happens happens, and consensus will decide the scope. But some clarity needs to be found so we know what the next course of action should be. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm making a big effort to remain neutral (and to that end I haven't examined the original dispute any further than to just see what the subject matter was), and I genuinely don't have an opinion on what the best outcome should be. If you're happy for me to do so, I'd be happy to examine and summarize the consensus. I'm not sure how long to leave it. On the one hand, there isn't the same urgency as there was for a 24h block and we need time for people to comment, but then it's tough to be sitting it out under this pressure while waiting for clarity. Any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In closing discussions that don't have a formal time span, and where there isn't any urgency, I would generally leave it until relevant discussion has slowed or stopped. If discussion is relevant but isn't making progress, and the discussion has already been open several days, I would give a 24 hour notice of intention to close - and extend that if new information came to light and/or there was a sudden swing in opinion. On this discussion I think there is enough information to make a judgement on what the consensus is regarding the scope of the current wording. I have come in and provided my insight into the matter, but views have not changed since. If there were evidence of my statements having altered opinions it would be worth waiting, but I think there's enough stuff there to close the first part of the discussion, and move on to the next, which would be - as you suggest - to clarify what people feel the scope should be, and to adjust the wording to make clear if it does or does not include animal health and anatomy. SilkTork (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. I've closed the part about the block, but I think I might prefer to leave the current scope part until tomorrow. That will give a complete day for US editors too - and my head is getting a bit too full to work on a consensus analysis right now, and there are several things I want to be careful to cover. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee and SilkTork, could one of you (maybe Boing! said Zebedee, given that SilkTork has dealt with our issues enough) make it clear to Barbara that she should stop referring to me/pinging me? Even after I noted this above to her, she did it again. It is aggravating/provocative, and Barbara knows this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, will do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for the ban, I'm glad you struck through those words. I don't think it's a good idea for people to start throwing around what they want excluded from the topic ban, when the specific wording that is there is there for valid reasons. Clarification on the ban is the route to go, and we can see that most editors there feel that the clarification is that veterinary medicine is excluded. My concerns on that aspect still stand, however. I mean, are we saying that veterinary medicine articles are okay for her to edit? Or is she free to edit and/or create anything about non-human animal medicine or anatomy? If it's the latter, that is where my main concerns come in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any possible future problems which might occur outside of the topic ban are things that people will have to deal with if and when they happen, I guess. All I really know is that it's outside of my scope in reviewing the current consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, regarding this, when you stated, "and so I read the ban as still covering articles which cover human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, even if editing non-human sections.", are you stating that you consider her allowed to go to an article like the Vagina article and edit the "Other animals" section? If so, do you not see how this can be used by Barbara as a way to provoke me and cause conflict? The way she stalked and provoked me in the past is serious, and a number of editors saw it. It wasn't just something that was all in my head. As for "consensus is that the ban does not extend to non-human animal topics," I read it more so as the consensus being that the ban does not extend to veterinary medicine articles. And if Barbara goes and creates a non-human animal vagina article or a non-human animal clitoris article (which has been objected to on solid grounds), I don't think that it's unreasonable of me to think that she would be doing so simply because I'm against it. I have to be honest in that I feel like the door has been opened for me to be unnecessarily provoked/harassed by Barbara yet again, even though on a smaller scale. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "...the ban as still covering articles which cover human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, even if editing non-human sections" means that she was and still is banned from doing that. As for your other concerns, they are not within my remit to address - my only task was to evaluate the consensus. And I don't think anything new has been opened - it's just that the consensus is that some things that some people thought were closed were actually not closed. I Must stress that I am not judging anything as good or bad for myself, and I really don't think I could have read the consensus any other way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one creates such an article, that person will naturally want to link to it in the main article. Anyway, I feel the way that I feel, and I have ample experience with Barbara to know how she edits/behaves (which is why the aforementioned scenarios were stated by me), but I understand your reasoning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I can only evaluate the consensus - I'm deliberately keeping away from offering any personal opinions on the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the first part. It was clear that the consensus was that the wording did not cover animals. We now need to move on to the second part, and seek clarity on consensus regarding if the TB should cover animals. If the consensus is that Barbara is safe to edit veterinary medicine articles then the wording of her TB as amended by you would stand. If the consensus is that she should not be allowed, then there would need to be some shifting in the wording. As I said above I am too close to this to be seen as neutral in seeking clarity on that, so it is appropriate that you should be the one to do that. You would be able to word it neutrality - I might allow weighted words to creep in. User:Flyer22 Reborn should be able to provide evidence of concerns regarding her editing in animal related areas once the discussion has been set up. SilkTork (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, that is not seeking clarity, it is proposing an extension to the ban. As an WP:UNINVOLVED admin, I have no interest in proposing a change to the ban in any direction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that, while having no opinion on the ban itself, my feeling after having evaluated the recent consensus is that there would be little community appetite for extending the ban right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I certainly don't have the stomach for it. I do of course dispute that it would be extending the ban, as there are a variety of views among those involved in the original ban discussion regarding if animals were to be understand as being part of it, so there remains lack of clarity in the intention, and also the need. But Wikipedia is not perfect, and attempts at resolving disputes are always Heath Robinson affairs that half of those involved feel is a disaster, and the other half feel is not quite good enough but will do for now. I suppose if someone is concerned enough they will open a debate. I guess I can feel I have tried by reaching out to you and to SV, and if neither of you are willing to take it on, then so be it. Thanks for helping me put some perspective on this. SilkTork (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Hi there. So what have you thought about  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MegaCyanide666? I do think he didn't deserved any allowance to edit given he was evading his block as recently as he created this account. I am requesting action as case is pretty clear and his votestacking will affect outcomes of discussion that are going to be closed soon. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought anything about it, to be honest. Whoever reviews the SPI case should be able to take care of it, and any admin is free to take any action they think appropriate without needing my input. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure was inappropriate, but I'm not going to undo it as it's not worth the hassle. I still expect a response as to why you think it is appropriate to threaten to block an editor for making a harmless comment. If you have an issue with what someone said, then tell them and ask them to take action of their own accord if necessary. If it's egregious enough (which this obviously wasn't), then handle it as necessary. But you were out of line to redact anything he said and to threaten further action multiple times. So please, explain why you think that was appropriate. Nihlus 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, and I'll be happy to respond to your concerns - but it's late where I am, so I'll get back to you some time tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that the issue reported at ANI really is resolved, the account in question is blocked and unlikely to be unblocked, and so there really is nothing more to do - and I maintain that closing it is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were not harmless. If someone is suffering from a mental illness (I say "if", as I am not qualified to judge), then posting public speculation that they are mentally ill can most definitely cause harm. Serious harm. Having said that, my threat to block was an over-reaction, and I have withdrawn it with an apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help in arbitrating the disputes on my page

SMendel (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as In order to complete your request, UTRS Global OAuth Authenticator (Development Branches) needs permission to access information about you, including your real name and email address, on all projects of this site. before declining their kind offer; given that it's not that long since the WMF (a) suffered a major security breach and (b) tried to frame me for it, my confidence in the integrity of their systems is zero. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that too, and I can understand your caution. It's why I would never register an account at the old way of doing UTRS - the old system used to say something along the lines of "No information you provide, even passwords, are secure"! As far as I understand it, the OAuth thing is the same authentication as the standard Wikipedia login, and as I already allow that for my regular login then I don't think I'm taking on any more risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the welcome

BARK! BARK! --PuppyNews (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit :(

I AM A BAD DOGGY :(

--PuppyNews (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PuppyNews is no good. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected that might be the outcome - a sock puppy, even ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people drink coffee after they get up in the morning; I confirm socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to find my socks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's found a new pet admin. DoRD, SQL, and I should be happy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on removing factual info on her? It's easy to verify and please pay attention to Marie Currie and Cherie Currie's pages. I'm baffled? This has been going on for some time. You can look her up anyplace. Thank you Ajlscl14 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(passerby) I would remove it because there are no facts cited by reliable sources and it looks like heavy puffery put out by someone trying to be a public relations writer. The overuse of cheesy adjectives makes the writing look campy and laughable. "...a feisty lass who exacts a harsh revenge on the scummy guys who raped her in the gritty Western Jessi's Girls (1975)". Good grief. The writing would need 75% of the adjectives chopped out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was also a copyright violation, appearing in several other places without a suitable release. But, as User:Berean Hunter says, promotional peacock prose like that does not belong in Wikipedia, especially not when inserted by an undeclared paid editor. I mean, "Beautiful, spirited and personable redhead actress Sondra Currie greatly enlivened..."? Seriously? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is something you did in 2017,

• (cur | prev) 15:52, 16 December 2017‎ Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,660 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Boing! said Zebedee moved page Deerbrook Mall (Chicago) to Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois) over redirect: It's not actually in Chicago (but the redirect will be there for those who think it is)) (undo)

which was done ;

• (cur | prev) 03:19, 10 October 2017‎ SirChan (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,080 bytes) (0)‎ . . (SirChan moved page Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois) to Deerbrook Mall (Chicago): Shorter name. In Chicagoland.) (undo)

and this is something that was just done.

• (cur | prev) 19:48, 23 April 2018‎ WhisperToMe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,393 bytes) (0)‎ . . (WhisperToMe moved page Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois) to Deerbrook Mall (Illinois): Unless there's another Wikipedia-notable Deerbrook Mall in Illinois, it's best to do this) (undo)

the point is,these people have nothing better to do than to re-edit what works and seem to be on the same path.

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SirChan

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WhisperToMe

isn’t this a form of vandlisum ? or just plain petty.

96.74.207.218 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm seeing a problem there. The 2017 edits are history, and the rationale for the 2018 move doesn't seem unreasonable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ItReallyShowsYouReallyCare don't need TPA ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "McShittles" vandal. TPA withdrawn. As an aside, there's no point getting into a rapid edit war with a vandal like that - just report them and then leave it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I think it's User:WhenDatHotlineBling. Thought vandalism must be reverted immediately. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to get rid of vandalism immediately if you can, yes, but my point is you can't win an edit war if they're determined - you can only really wait until an admin stops them. The usual recommendation is to report to WP:AIV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:172.106.88.104 Another one. Noted. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should welcome your reaction to my comment, here. I am also asking Spinningspark. Just Chilling (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boing. First let's get the last thing out of the way. You were right a lot of heat/light ratio was created. I felt upset and my job doesn't make my life easier, so I felt frustrated on the report. That was unnecessary though it wasn't meant personally. You are right I should only focus on editing. So I've decided to keep editing occasionally whenever I'm available.

Anyway, I can't figure out where to take my issue. Wikipedia consensus has disallowed gaming specs. But I think it would be beneficial, it's not like the specs change. Hopefully you could guide me where to start an RfC about it. I may be old here, but there are still many things I need to learn and being shortchanged on time I can't keep searching where to start it. Thanks. DraculatheDragon (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]