User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

July 2018

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Reuse of what had been abandoned

This is of absolutely no importance or significance, but I thought you might not know about it, and if not you just might be mildly interested. If you couldn't care less, that's fine. [1]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, interesting observation, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cricket tours to SA, 1990s

How dare you so smugly delete my input to the relevant page about the tours of SA in the 1990s. For whatever reason - and it is almost certainly inertia - although there is a page for every Test tour on this site, the sole exception is those to SA in the 1990s. I think this is absurd. I have had this out with certain users, but where I have, you see fit to delete everything. Don't do this again. Marplesmustgo (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please check your email (can't say much onwiki)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aspening (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Aspening (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

IP block possibly needed

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I'm too busy to deal with this myself today, but since you are the admin who previously blocked User talk:174.119.80.219, I wonder if you could take a look at the recent edits from the IP when you have a chance. It looks to me like the previous block evasion has continued after the expiration of the previous IP block, resulting in new problems. The edit volume is also pretty high, so there may be a variety of things in need of reversion. Thanks and best, Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Yamla who appears to have assisted in dealing with the IP previously. Dekimasuよ! 20:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I have a better handle on this now; it looks like the original block was of an IP, not an editor, and that both blocks have now naturally expired. Please let me know if I've got this wrong, however. The tendentiousness of the new edits from the IP is still troubling. Dekimasuよ! 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I didn't respond yet, but I've been out all day. I don't have a lot of time now, but I'll try to have a look tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry again, I forgot about this completely. But it looks like it's been dealt with now as they're blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock trolling me on DF's talk page?

This looks super-suspicious. I'd blank it myself except that the parts that bother me the most (the only parts that aren't gibberish) are accusations against me, and I'm trying to avoid directly responding to those. Also, the editor whose talk page it is had their talk page access revoked, which adds an extra layer of ick to the whole affair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I initially blanked the above because I suspected them of being a sock of an ArbCom-banned editor based on some stuff that, on closer examination, was not as conclusive as I thought. I don't think it's them anymore. I guess disclosing why couldn't hurt: that user has a grudge against me, but MrC was trolling not only me but also User:Oshwah, whose interaction with that editor has been minimal, and User:SoWhy, who to the best of my knowledge has never interacted with him.) It's still an obvious sock/troll (look at the "adopt me" posts...) but I'm a little less worried about it than I was when I first blanked the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I've already blocked them. SQL^{Query me!} 05:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was writing the above while drinking Tokucha in the eat-in section of a FamilyMart on a very hot Osaka afternoon. I think you would all like to be spared the details of why I suddenly stopped writing long enough for the whole affair to work itself out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the things I miss while sleeping. Glad to see it's sorted. Obvious troll - I support the indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Best in the World 2006

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)

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

Bales Dai

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Not meaning to feed the trolls, but...

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)

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)

(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)

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

Report on Goat's Bridge vandalism?

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)

August 2018

"Okay, I just looked at Bishonen's page and I think he might be on drugs"

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).

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

(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)

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

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

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

Broughton - Jarvis Brothers promotion

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)

Editor using Wikipedia as... a pastebin?

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)

(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)

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)

Now what?

{hat|I'm closing this, as arguments here are only likely to escalate tension rather than cool it, and we should be doing the latter. A discussion to clarify the topic ban is being held at the appropriate place, and that is all that is needed now. Please, no more discussion of it here. Any further comments, from either side, will be removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)} Thanks for the un-block. What happens from here? I'm not ready to appeal my topic ban but I'm guessing that nothing 'happens' to the admin who blocked me? Shall I stay away from all bacteria articles? How do I ask 'permission' to create content without violating my ban by using words that I am banned from using? I am not gaming the system and never even thought I was editing in an area which I am banned. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I'd suggest asking for a clarification of your topic ban and whether it was intended to cover veterinary medicine, as there are people in the two discussions who certainly think it should not be interpreted that way. If veterinary medicine is not covered, then you should be fine as long as you keep away from human medicine and sexuality. If veterinary medicine is covered, then the scope could still be ambiguous, but I think it would probably be wise to keep away from bacteria etc that infect animals. When appealing or asking for clarification of a topic ban, you are allowed to use "banned" words, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure where to suggest asking for clarification, as it's a community ban, but it might be worth asking User:Sandstein who closed the original ban discussion here and was approached here. Sandstein should be able to guide you, and might suggest a query at WP:AN is needed - which you might or might not want to do. But I think it's probably worth asking for Sandstein's thoughts either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, maybe best to just watch that ANI discussion for a bit longer first, as discussion of whether the scope of the ban has been clarified is still continuing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at ANI to seek clarification by consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the problem-I can have no interactions with Flyer22 Reborn because I have an interaction ban with her. Therefore I am unable to comment at ANI! And just because one editor thinks that it is okay to mention medical topics when appealing the topic ban, doesn't mean that other editors agree. It may be best to wait to see how this all works out but I do want to mention that F22 posted to the discussion pinged the editors who supported the ban and left out notification of the editors who opposed the ban! I am not appealing my topic ban at this time. And I guess what Silk Tork did was 'ok'. I don't expect you to 'do' anything about what is going on, but my options are limited. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to just leave it to play out, and for you to not say anything at the ANI discussion - the consensus seems to be going your way at the moment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), per WP:IBAN, you should not even be referring to me/pinging me. And as for your "F22 posted to the discussion pinged the editors who supported the ban and left out notification of the editors who opposed the ban!" claim, no, I pinged everyone who voted on the ban. Everyone. It is easy enough for anyone to see, here and here. There was only one "object" vote, and that was by Winkelvi. And he specifically objected to a one-way interaction ban. And I clearly pinged him in the review case (of how far your ban extends) that's going on now at WP:ANI. Your misrepresentation of things is one big reason that it's best that you do not mention/talk about me on Wikipedia (directly or indirectly). Your options are limited for valid reasons. But, of course, you always pull the victim card and have never taken responsibility for what you did with regard to me and/or the problematic edits you have made to medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

{hab}

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

DraculaTheDragon

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)

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)

The Barbara situation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Inappropriate block threats

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)

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)

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)

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)

A goat for you!

thanks for your help in arbitrating the disputes on my page

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

UTRS

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)

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)

Woof!

Thank for the welcome

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

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

Whine

Sorry for the edit :(

I AM A BAD DOGGY :(

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

Told you...

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

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

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

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

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

Sondra Currie

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)

(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)

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)

fyi

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)

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)

Help

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

UNTRS appeal 22359

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

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

Specs

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)

I've no idea, sorry, not knowing anything at all about gaming. Perhaps there's a project somewhere where you could ask? To be honest, though, I'd resist the temptation to challenge consensus just yet, and instead build yourself a track record of good editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't want to challenge it especially when there's no serious resistance from others. I'll wait for some months and see if strong opinion is there against it. DraculatheDragon (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Pilgrim State

Thank you for dealing with that – I was just trying to remove some of the remaining copyvio, and asking myself if it was worth it. As I think you know, I've requested a CCI; do you perhaps feel like opening it? I might work on it a bit if you do – I do hate to see good-faith editors like Cwmhiraeth expend time and effort on improving content that will anyway need to be deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going through it sentence by sentence, and each one had just been lifted (more or less verbatim) from the quoted source - and there's only so much of that I could do before I realised there soon wouldn't be enough left to make a meaningful article. And yes, our new page patrollers and reviewers are among our unsung heroes and I hate to see their time wasted too. I have to confess I've no idea how to start a CCI, but I might have a look later and see what's needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

When I am reviewing articles, I check them with Earwig's tool for copyvios. Because I had dealt with this article so recently, I was able to get back to the screen I had seen and I have it in front of me now. It gives a 51.3% likelihood of copyvios and when I look at the highlighted text, they are all quotations. Two other comparisons had 49% and 39% figures and were similar. I doubt it was necessary to delete this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I did think it was necessary, unfortunately. I didn't use any tools, I just read the cited sources and compared them. The content sourced to the Guardian was pretty much lifted directly, with minor rearrangements at best. Similarly the content sourced to Time Out. And that was pretty much everything other than the direct quotes. With the offending portions removed, pretty much all that would be left would be the lede plus a series of quotations - and though quotations are usually fine, we'd essentially just have a WP:QUOTEFARM. The priority was that the copyvios had to go, and there's a limit to how much work I'm willing to do to fix a serial copyright violator's problems - I'll do some work, but I'm not going to rewrite a whole article. But if you fancy a go at it, I could restore a stubbed version (with the sources intact) if you want to redevelop it from there? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you also check this article, Cwmhiraeth? Earwig only gave it 39%, but it was article text, not quotation; by the time that had been removed there'd have almost nothing left but the quotes. The editor is indeffed for copyright violations, and apparently with good reason. I've saved a copy of the references that were used if you want to re-create the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I've stubbed it at Pilgrim State (book), with all the sources. I also note that a previous version had been deleted as a copyvio too, and then it was recreated again with massive copyright violations before other people heavily pruned it - and I've had to rev-delete the copyvio revisions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that I didn't check the third, Guardian, comparison nor did I realise the creator had been blocked for coyright violation. Never mind! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:She did nothing wrong

Whom you blocked, is back as User:Let her go free, and up to the same tricks. Take care, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The user is Let her go free. I was also informed that She did nothing wrong is not BrillLyle. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 17:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: better off not speculating, bro; unless you've enough for SPI of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not BrillLyle, no, it's a wpo troll. Just revert, block, ignore is all we need to do with such puerile antics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Peculiar spelling

I've seen occasinally come your comments before and they have invariably been sensible, but I don't think I agree with what you did there: I understand why their habit might be annoying to some people, but I really think it's none of our business what spelling editors prefer to use on their talk page. Regarding their idiosyncratic choice as "trolling" is over the top, and using that as rationale for declining an unblock request is a clear no-no. – Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, thank you. But this is the English language Wikipedia, and if an editor persists in deliberately spelling English words incorrectly in discussion with others after their error has been pointed out, then I do see that as trolling. Anyway, it's out of my hands now, and it's up to the admin who reviews the next unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2020

I don't think that United States presidential election, 2020 needs to be fully protected, at least not indefinitely. Since full protection went into effect, I've made some significant removals of content from the page -- granted, with apparent consensus on the talk page -- and received no criticism for doing so, which I would have expected if there was a real problem with edit warring. I recommend reducing the protection level to semi-protection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said at the time, any admin was welcome to reduce the protection using their own judgment. It's done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

Please watch BWV 134a, my next GA-to-be, and say boing if needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles said boing, but please watch anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Courcelles reads article, doesn't remember seeing it before in his life. Courcelles (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Courcelles blocked FS who had the last word so far. I woke up this morning, determined to overcome my strict obedience to a voluntary 1RR, sadly sure that further edit-warring would follow. But you gave us 6 weeks of relief, thank you. FS has a peculiar interpretation of WP:BRD, DYK? I may correct that one article later today, but there are still some hundred other bold edits, introducing BWV3, a third numbering system of the Bach works, which FS is the only person to care about. If you ask me, there was no need for any changes, perhaps a footnote saying: now also number so-and-so. Instead, FS called the traditional numbers "formerly" and "previously", while the source he always quotes, Bach Digital, has new and old number nicely together on one level. As if we had nothing else to do. I have first to fix/reference an article for which today is the last possible day to nominate ;) - Related discussions were on the FS talk page and on Project Classical music, if you want to know background. For a sample, the recent history of the article mentioned above and the edit-warring notice on my talk may tell enough of a frustrating story. If not enough, ask Softlavender. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Article looks good to me (though I'm no expert, I just listen to Bach without knowing a great deal - and there's another numbering scheme?!) I was disappointed to see that merge edit-warring still going on, and all I can say is I support the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• The article will need a bit more detail to be "good" in the sense of my initials. What it didn't need was the last sequence of edits, as explained above. I'll restore some boldly removed features and hope they'll stay that way (please watch but little danger for the next weeks), and then expand. It's meant to be TFA on 1 January 2019, 300 years after its premiere ;) - Still need to add refs to Psalm 47. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting usernames

User:I pull up in the renault and shoot you in the penjs, User:I pull up in the ultima and shoot you in the penjs, User:I pull up in the mega and shoot you in the penjs, User:I pull up in the zenvo and shoot you in the penjs, User:I pull up in the bitter and shoot you in the penjs, User:I pull up in the spyker and shoot you in the penjs. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you block them all? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Interesting" is certainly one way to describe them :-) Normally I'd wait for a user to edit, but the creation of so many means there's too much to follow - and I just can't stretch AGF to this lot. I'll block them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

However, they make me laugh :) They're almost confirmed as socks. Can't AGF in some circumstances ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Rameezraja001

Did you mean to remove the block notice, etc? Doug Weller talk 13:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, he did that himself prior to my message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that while I was composing a post on some of his edits. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

KahnJohn27

Issue is not that smaller one. We know that KahnJohn27 has evaded his block throughout 2017 and also 2018. Other editors like Ms Sarah Welch are also aware of that.

Don't you think requesting a CU would be appropriate? Because when he was checkusered last time during unblock request,[2] the new socks were discovered. It would be standard to run CU given the abuse with IPs. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No direct link to KahnJohn27 has been proven as far as I can see (just suspicions in that one SPI report), none of the accounts listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KahnJohn27 or confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27/Archive has been active since 2016, and all of the proven socks of KahnJohn27 are way too stale for a CU check. The unblock has been done for a new start (after consultation with the blocking admin). I think it's time to drop this now and see how the new account goes - and by all means file a new SPI if you have evidence of new socking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

See the case of a similar editor CushionMail AKA Js82, when he was unblocked without a CU. Bbb23 had to say for this sock master,[3] that there had to be a CU when he was unblocked, even though by CU perspective the older data was already "stale for a CU check" since he didn't edited for 5 months prior unblock,[4] but Bbb23 still discovered recent socking. As for KahnJohn27/Draculathedragon, it seems he was evading block on same day (see my edit summary) when he created DraculatheDragon.[5] What is wrong with requesting a CU? Even when I was being unblocked a CU had investigated me prior unblock.[6] It is a required process when sock masters are being unblocked. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you from filing a new SPI report and requesting CU if you wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: The earlier situation you describe is not analogous. You can file an SPI if you like, but a CU request will likely be declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Boing! said Zebedee, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm glad to see you intend to write some biographies of women. Please let me know if you run into any problems or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Strand

Please note that among User:Strand's edits to their talk page are links to their Twitter account, where they are posting personal attacks off-wiki.[7] -208.54.40.248 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, saw that, thanks. Off-wiki they can pretty much say what they like as far as I'm concerned, and venting there might even help them calm down a bit by the time the block expires - at least, we can hope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Olly OIIy Olly

Could you disable their talkpage? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:B80C:4065:CA00:567D (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Block-decline technical detail

When you declined at User talk:YogeshGosaviFilmmaker, you switched it to |1=127.0.0.1 instead of the autoblock number. I don't know much about the technical details of autoblocking. Is this intentional? DMacks (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's just what the default decline template says. I've taken it out now - I've no idea what the real IP address is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's just placeholder text. Though if we were able to anon-block everyone whose host resolved itself to 127.0.0.1, we would solve a lot of problems. DMacks (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

For pakistan wikipedia page.

The president of Pakistan has changed. Now the newly elected Presiden is Arif Alvi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arif_Alvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalan.TA (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to request that change at the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, Boing! said Zebedee. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 01:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That was the first day of many good and some memorable edits, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Only some memorable, eh? ;-)

I have to small a memory for them all, but won't forget what you said when Andy fixed what was meant to be an infobox, for one example, - no time for more, off for today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy the rest of the day :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

LOOkranthi

Just letting you know I switched the block to a checkuser block. Confirmed to be a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Autoblock

FYSA: Cleared an autoblock here that was impacting what appears to be an unrleated editor (presumably a school or some such underneath). For you awareness in case there's a deeper chain of events. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - looks fine to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Banned users

Saw the discussion on Alex Shih’s talk. We document site bans by placing {{Banned User}} on a userpage and linking to the discussion in the template. This automatically adds them to the correct tracking category. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian American Hospital

You deleted this article some time ago. Was there anything in it worth rescuing? I am in the UK, so I dont have access to all the American sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It was mainly spammy, with a "Mission" section ("It is our mission to provide..." etc) accounting for the bulk of the article. There might be some useful material in the infobox though, and maybe useful refs - I could email you a copy if you want? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Arianewiki1

Thanks for trying to help reach a consensus in the unblock request, but I've just declined it. I needed a straight answer and I wasn't getting one. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was a bit frustrating, but I think you did the right thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki see-also link on Oghara-Iyede

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real, and page history of the article. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Alfred Radermacher

Hi, I was just about to post a delete statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Radermacher but edit-conflicted with your retraction edit. My take would have been the following:

• Delete. Part of a walled garden built around the notion that crew members of that particular U-boat are notable for their alleged one-to-one correspondence with characters in the book, which would be fallacious even if such a correspondence existed (which it apparently doesn't). Apart from that, the subject clearly fails WP:SOLDIER (didn't even command a boat in battle), and most certainly fails WP:GNG. Note that a bare-bones outline of his career could probably be reliably sourced from books such as Busch & Röll, Der U-Boot-Krieg, but that's just routine catalog listings of all boats and commanders, so per "not indiscriminiate information" those listings alone won't imply notability either.

I'll leave it to you to if you want to reconsider. Personally I don't really see that U-boat commanders should be notable ipso facto (that's certainly not what WP:SOLDIER says, which only speaks of commanders of a navy's "capital ships"), and in this case he didn't even have such a minor command in any actual battle situation, only training boats apparently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'd misunderstood a previous keep of a u-boat commander and I'd missed the "capital ships" bit. And yes, our friend really did build an impressive walled garden. What you say makes sense, and I think I'll withdraw my withdrawal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Block/appeals process

More information added at User_talk:120.17.85.26#Block_appeal. I believe the process needs much improvement. —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Posting info

Hello,

I tried to post 2 articles and they were deleted, I don't understand why. Can you give me some information about that? Actually I would like to post an article, not to edit another articles.

Articles from help center are not helping at all . Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRo2000 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The only deleted "article" I can see from you is your user page where you tried to write about something called a "Youtubert". That appears to be something you made up yourself (I can find no relevant search hits at all) and is therefore unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. It is also not appropriate material to keep on your user page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I really appreciate you deleted that comment that I called into question. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

When I went to warn them about it, I saw a blatant person attack at their talk page and so I've given them a 24 hour break from Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for enforcing our civility rules and taking action. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sincerely....

	"Sunflower Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear. Thank you for all do! Atsme✍🏻📧 14:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Boing! said Zebedee,

Hope you are doing well! I would like to change my username from Eliza Garrity to Snowzebra as I do not want my real name to be displayed.

Let me know if you need anything else to make that happen!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliza Garrity (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all that was needed, I've done the rename for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Renamer right request

To answer your question, no I hadn't thought of it, but now you have suggested it I have done so. Thanks for the suggestion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

AN Discussion

I want to say I'm really grateful to you for starting this discussion, as unpleasant as it may be and as reluctant as I understand you were to do so. The ANI thread that I refer to in my own vote has really bothered me ever since that thread was closed, not just because of what I felt were unsubstantiated allegations that should have resulted in sanctions, but because a number of concerning things were being uncovered (including Doug Weller's discovery that the reported editor may have been fabricating sources) that were subsequently totally derailed. Obviously, the outcome of that thread wasn't what I voted for, but the part that upset me had more to do with the casualness of the accusations and the fact that a potentially seriously problematic editor was left with an active account when their behavior might be much worse than just one-mindedness on a particular topic. So, again, thank you. Grandpallama (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grandpallama, thanks for your thoughts. I really didn't want to have to start that discussion, and seeing some of the responses after I woke this morning saddens me. But I think it had to be done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35