Jump to content

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

October 2018

Thanks...

... for closing this discussion before it could get too long - I hesitated to ask the question because I realise admins have backlogs to attend to and might not want to field arbitrary questions about deleted content. Also thanks Floquenbeam for taking the time to answer. 128.62.53.226 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You

forgot to sign over User talk:Hasive/Archive 1#Blocked :-)∯WBGconverse 10:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops, well spotted, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tendency of the rate of profit to fall

It would be useful if you could note for posterity at the bottom of this talk page that you performed redactions above czar 13:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, forgot to get round to that - done it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

An Apology

Thanks for reducing my block, and my sincere apologies for my outburst at you, it was undeserved, I was in fact reacting to admin behaviour generally, but I'm sure you know that. The fact that we edit conflicted, and I was reacting to your first comment on my page, does not excuse the treatment you received from me. I'd also like to thank the peanut gallery for my welcome here, I suppose grave-dancing that way only to be expected from my fellow editors. + + + waves at Atsme and David. + + + -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 15:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You owe me an apology, Roxy the dog. Your accusation of me gravedancing is the worst kind of aspersion you have cast against me to date. I have no clue where it comes from or why. I suppose you think I keep up with you, but I don't so refrain from waving at me. You are one of maybe 2 editors I have asked to not post on my TP - can't remember why but my instincts tell me you did/said something about me that was false and derogatory. I see you haven't changed your ways. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the apology, but the accusation of grave-dancing is out of line. I was thanking Boing! for a more even-handed handling of the dispute between Hardy and others in terms of civility. It had nothing to do with you specifically. Besides, you were only temporarily blocked and could easily respond when the block ended, which you did here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: This section just rose to the top of my talk page, and I realised I hadn't replied - which I thought I had. So, I belatedly thank you for your gracious apology (while, yes, acknowledging that admin responses to such issues are often poor). My only real feeling now that this episode has apparently settled down is sadness, that issues involving well-meaning people can become so unnecessarily aggressive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Unitarianism in Liverpool

Unitarianism in Liverpool seems to have been a really big connector in the 18th/19th centuries, with umpteen chapels hosting many notable families, many of whom intermarried or conducted business together. Holts, Rathbones, Mellys, Roscoes etc, with chapels at Ullet Rd, Renshaw St, Toxteth, Hope St etc and interests in slavery as well as general merchanting and shipping. If I were to start an article on it, for which I am sure from my past reading there are sources, do you think it is worthwhile? I am concerned that it might open the floodgates to other granularised topics of lesser worth or that I'll be told to redirect it to an article about Unitarianism in England. On the other hand, the sources are there and it would act as a good jumping-off point for links to the related articles about people, places and businesses.

What would Euphemia Smellie think? - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd really have to leave it to you for notability, sources etc, as it's a subject I know nothing about. But I could certainly go get photos for you. (And I'm sure Euphemia would be happy, whatever you come up with). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I can get the photos if needed, thanks. I'm not great with a camera - tend to take a lot of shots of the sky and the floor - but I can get by. Prepare to be educated! - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to it - and if my proximity for photos might be useful, do let me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

MechMaster Katzenstein

I think they're back to being overzealous to IP's as an IPv6 themselves; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#188.137.40.75, where said IP asked for a three-month bludgeon block on some IP adding unsourced information and several edits from the reporting IPv6 on IP talk pages getting annoyed that other IPs forced semi-protect on other articles. The 'learn their lesson' really stands out as a MMK trademark (thankfully no epileptic YouTube vids this time). Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, undoubtedly him, and I found another IP several a whole bunch of other IPs in the same area doing the same kind of things (including reinstating removed warnings, which also shows he's really not learning). Oh, and engaging in a spree of warning IPs, including this. I've blocked the most recent ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; the IP range hadn't really changed, so thankfully it was easy to see it was them. Vandalism is easily reverted and doesn't need long blocks to control outside of serial cases. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

My unblock

Hello. You recently unblocked my page after I changed my username. Is there a way to retrieve my original page so I can make edits, or do I have to create a new one? :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huckleberry3436 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Huckleberry3436: I'm not sure which page you mean, as I don't see any deleted pages in your history or any pages that you have actually created. If you mean the changes you made to Howard Cannon (author), they were reverted by User: Diannaa as being unsourced, so if you want to redo them you'd need to find and provide reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS for more information on verifiability and sourcing requirements). Or, more generally, when changes are reverted, the thing to do is discuss them at the article talk page and seek a consensus (see WP:Consensus) - for that article, that would be Talk:Howard Cannon (author). (Sorry about all the policy links, but there's quite a lot to learn when you're just getting started here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Admin bouncing in

Ooh, don't think I've seen such a brightly coloured slinky before. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious to know if you both get the cultural reference here. On balance, you probably do. -Florence, in the middle. wooF 18:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Dougal, surely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, only theoretically, Florence. I understand why Zebedee says boing, but The Magic Roundabout was never shown here. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC).
Good heavens. Growing up in a country with no magic roundabout? That must be almost as boring as growing up in a country where schools have compulsory cricket. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I must have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, you're American, innit? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
I suspect Zébulon may have to start calling you "Ambroise". Flappy 123 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Dylan was always my favourite, btw. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Cosmos-Maya

Hi, This page, Cosmos-Maya, has been blanked as there's been a potential copyright issue in small sections of the article so I have posted a new version of the article (albeit the section names and references remain the same) at this temporary page and also left a note at Talk:Cosmos-Maya Can you please restore the page Luketense (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Luketense, you might like to read Wikipedia:Otherparent – you've asked me, you've asked JTtheOG, and now you're asking here. The page will be dealt with in due course, which may mean in some time – there's a backlog at WP:CP. Meanwhile, a question for you: do you have some connection to the company, or to other topics such as Rajesh Kamat and Poonam Soni? Are you perhaps being paid to create those pages? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock...and a question

Thank you for unblocking and changing my username. Do you know how I can re-instate the original Genomics plc page? It was created before my time and the company would like to continue to have a presence on Wikipedia Njduckw1 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:X027

I just noticed that the user can still upload pictures to wiki-commons, should he not blocked, banned there also? Govvy (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to ask over at Commons, but I think they'd only be blocked if they repeatedly violate Commons policies. I've nominated their latest two uploads as out of commons:Commons:Project scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't really use commons that much, I'd have to admit I don't really know how to report users on it. I am more of a wikipedia person. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep an eye on what they're doing over there and will pursue it with Commons admins if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I msg'ed Bbb23, but didn't realise he was away for a few days, but I got a message on my talk page from User:ANUCH6F, I am 100% sure it's X027, Govvy (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It does look likely, yes. I can't do checkuser myself, so that SPI seems like the best approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Logic School of Management

was G11 tagged by DGG after the ProD was removed by the article creator under the mistaken belief that the earlier declined A7 disqualifies it from notability issues. G11 was previously declined. A ha'penny for your thoughts?-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Hmm, "Educational institutions are exempt from notability clause" is certainly incorrect. But I'm not sure the article is sufficiently promotional in its content style to qualify for G11 (motives notwithstanding), and I would probably decline a G11. It might have to go to AfD, where I think it would be a certain Delete. There's no in-depth coverage of the institution in any of the sources - even the one from The Hindu reads like a press release. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'll just add that "Does not meet WP:NORG" is not a valid A7 rationale, as A7 is not about notability, and I would have declined that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Kinda how I felt.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminder - speedy deletions and deletion discussions

Just a small reminder, when speedy deleting pages that have a current AFD discusion ongoing (as you did here and here), you should be closing the discussion instead of just leaving a note on the deletion discussion. There's no reason to keep the discussion open as the page has already been deleted. Iffy★Chat -- 14:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I preferred to leave them for a second pair of eyes, in case there was any dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

We

are not suitable enough for gracing the questionnaire-page. Probably our username(s) sounds funny; who knows?! ∯WBGconverse 15:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, too:-)

Added as a part to an arbitration case request

Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks, at the direction of a member of the arbitration committee you have been added as a party to The Fred Bauder Case Request as you were the original blocking administrator. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this action. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

revdel

Can anyone please hide this revision because the image added to the page was highly inappropriate in a school business? -216.25.187.3 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, Boing. What a cluster with Fred Bauder, eh? To be clear, neither I nor the community thinks you did anything wrong. It was a perfectly legitimate use of admin discretion, you were immediately accountable for your action, and you're certainly not to blame for the unreasonable way he responded. However, you've offered me blunt constructive criticism on more than one occasion, and I have always respected and learned from your input—against my defensive nature as a very flawed human, of course. So, I just want to take the opportunity to offer you some constructive criticism about the situation, because the review of your actions ended up falling to the wayside. Sometimes it's best to give established editors a break, rather than sullying their clean block log. Even if they're the ones in the wrong. You're one of the users who taught me that. Fred had a clean block log for 16 years. You took that away from him over edit warring. That's harsh, even if Fred was in the wrong by moving the questions. It could have been resolved another way. Also, sometimes, people do not respond in a reasonable manner when you ruin their clean block log over a petty issue, and things escalate far more than they were ever supposed to—and it might not be fair to hold that against them. Secondly, not only did you do that to a Wikipedia Old God, but you did it from a semi-involved, IAR standpoint. Now, you of course were immediately accountable for that judgment call, and I'm not suggesting that you were influenced by emotion or bias, but still, that's the kind of unnecessarily controversial admin behavior that may well have been questioned by at least some at AN/I, had Fred not taken the focus away from your block. Thirdly, there is usually never any need for a semi-involved IAR action, but this incident was within an Arbcom election. Arbcom elections are unique in that they have a designated body that is authorized by the community to decisively handle disputes. I'm not sure what sort of situations brought about the founding of this sort of body, but I suspect preventing these types of incidents was in line with the community's original intent. None of this ever had to happen. A community-mandated authority could have settled the original dispute without anything ever escalating. There was no need for you to take things into your own hands, and doing so was probably a little rash. Lastly, there's the simple matter of election optics. Any election needs an air of legitimacy, and a lack of unfair influence by a single party. Had Fred not reacted the way he did, your block would have still severely damaged, if not destroyed, an Arbcom candidate's prospects in the election. This is not good, but is made worse by the fact that it was an unusually controversial block. Of course, meddling in the election was not your intent, but even if you were 100% in the right, your unilateral judgment would still have more impact in the election than any individual vote. If a candidate had to receive their first ever block on the eve of an election, it should have at least come after a community review. Even at this point, the Electoral Commission does not think it's fair to disqualify Fred due to his desysop and indef block. They think it's better for the community to judge Fred, rather than them three. If, after all of this, the Electoral Commission thinks the community, not they, should judge Fred's admin abuse, surely the community, not you, could have judged Fred's edit warring. Anyways, just some things that I hope you will reflect on. I have nothing but respect for you as an administrator, and I hope you will not take offense at my criticism. It is only meant to help you improve as an administrator, as you have helped me improve as one. Hope all is well. Best regards,  Swarm  talk  07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Swarm, for your carefully considered comments - not offended at all, just grateful for the effort and time you've put into them. Anyway, this is just a placeholder to say thanks, and I'll offer a fuller reply when I've had more time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: Thinking back on this whole episode (and having slept on it again), I want to respond properly. One thing that I still maintain is clear is that it is established policy that one is not allowed to move other people's comments from public discussion pages, with the exception of one's own talk page (and clear vandalism, copyvio, NPA violations...) It's also plainly obvious (as someone pointed out) that RfA and RfB candidates don't get to move questions themselves. So I don't believe it falls under the remit of the Electoral Commission to rule on whether it is allowed or not - it is already clear Wikipedia policy that it is not. Having said that, going via the Electoral Commission to act on it would have been a better approach, and that simply did not occur to me at the time.

Your point that action by me could be seen as having undue influence on the election is well taken, as is your suggestion that Fred's subsequent misuse of admin tools in unblocking himself twice took the heat off me. You're right, and if Fred had not reacted the way he did, I think there would have been more criticism of my involvement. One result is that I have decided to withdraw my election guide this year, as I feel I would have to recuse on Fred's candidacy. That would mean I could not review other candidates adequately in relation to the rest of the field, and a recusal within my election guide on Fred could itself be influential.

My conclusion is that my best course of action, from among those that realistically presented themselves to me at the time, would have been to report Fred's moving of questions to ANI instead of acting myself. Thanks again for your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've withdrawn

There are enough good candidates and I'd like to see Joe Roe (who is away on working on an archaeology site right now, hence his late entry) get in. We need new blood and active editors on the Committee. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I'm not disappointed - you were very likely to be in my six. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Likewise...Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Disappointed. Now I have to think! :( --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks. So you know I am aware of the conditions and so (as you see) I tread carefully and stand away from Liberland (but can still use its talk). Let me know if there is anything else needed to ensure I remain unblocked. Thanks. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I won't block you again, but I can't say what the result of the ANI might be. If you have not done so already, I suggest you make your offer there and see if it is accepted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarian Festival listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vegetarian Festival. Since you had some involvement with the Vegetarian Festival redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

IP block

I have redacted the history of the talkpage, I felt that personal attack should be removed - this crossed the border for me. Can you please review? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already added my endorsement ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks (again). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

TGS appeal

Hopefully you won't take this amiss, but, in my view, your challenges to most of the opposes at AN are badgering.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Puffery?

How could you criticise someone else on Wiki when you clearly are showing you make mistakes yourself? You said it was puffery with Pearl Jam when all I did was move the sentence in the last paragraph to the lead, that's it. The info regarding them as one of the best bands of the decade was already there, as I said I only moved it to the lead. Do you even know what you're doing? It would be better if you didn't criticise others as if you're doing everything right.Keditz (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keditz, and thank you for your comments. You suggest I need to be perfect and never make a mistake myself before I can criticize someone else's actions? Don't be silly - if that were the rule, criticism would not exist. I was mistaken about a connection between you and someone else who was doing similar things to you, but I think it was a fair question to ask - and I apologize for getting it wrong. As for your editing, which several people think is problematic, the best place to talk about that is the ANI discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful comment

Thanks for your comment on that talk page. You made a good point that we should focus on what people do and not try to read their minds. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Cheers for the comment

Hey, i just wanted to say thank you for not just ridiculing me for my post in the Tarage discussion at AN, or calling my motives into question etc. If anything i blame myself a little for not posting that earlier. Not that i believe it would have made much, or even any, difference; but still. It just is something i feel is often forgotten in dispute resolution here, and certainly was forgotten by Tarage himself in the past. It just is easy to beat down someone in such discussions without a further thought about there being someone behind the screen on the receiving end, even if they were clearly wrong or worse. And as i said originally, i doubt that after this experience it would happen again should they decide to stick around. But honestly, the on the surface civil but otherwise grumpy and needlessly harsh and inflammatory people are by far the worst issue of dispute resolution here in my opinion. In part beause it is so much harder to deal with. Anyway, not usually a touchy feely person so i am a bit surprised about myself lol. Again, thank you for treating me like a human being with that tiny comment, sadly far from the norm if you don't want to make an account. And sorry to bother you here with my blabbering. 91.97.243.129 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for your comment, which made a good point. I try to make no distinction between people using registered accounts or editing as IPs, and I value all positive contributions (although a named account does actually make it easier to know who's talking - and is actually more anonymous in a way, as it does not reveal geographic location). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i know that. Always strikes me as odd to be called an anon by someone with a fantasy name when they can roughly see where i live. Pretty much the opposite of being anonymous lol. Anyway, have a good day. 91.97.243.129 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your expression of sadness. I was shocked (and said so). I think the above letter should have (had) the link to Raymond Arritt. His admin function is perhaps the least important part of his influence. He kept me on Wikipedia, did you know? On top of writing the ultimate guide on arbitration. see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, his name popped up in so many places where he did a great deal of good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder closed

An arbitration case regarding Fred Bauder has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Fred Bauder is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.
  2. For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
  3. Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
  4. Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 08:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder closed
Thanks for the update. Those four remedies all seem reasonable to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No problem! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher), sorry to butt in, just happened to see this. Cameron11598, should that perhaps read "Matters which are of a private nature ..." rather than "Matters which are of a private matter ..."? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: I think it would make more sense grammatically IMHO but this is the language the committee used. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's obviously a mistake, and I imagine one they'd like to fix. Do want to ask them, or shall I? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll send it to the list and see what the thoughts are. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Changed per clerks-l --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Language matters Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Fred case

I just want you to know my comments on the AC noticeboard are not personal. I have a great deal of respect for you as an admin, and was not (and am not) interested in getting you in any sort of trouble. I think the remedies were pretty much what they should have been: Fred (and only Fred) desysopped, Maxim not beat up over an obviously good faith IAR action, and some warnings/cautions/reminders for everyone else.

My primary concern throughout this has been that there's been a real unseemly pile-on on Fred. From the edit war to the block/unblock battle to the community ban (!) discussion to the AC case, there's been a really disproportionate reaction to his bad judgment, and the fact that he was singled out for inappropriate rollback criticism when he was not the only one doing that was, to me, a signal that ArbCom had basically endorsed and continued this pile-on. If the committee wasn't prepared to call out everyone for that, it should have refrained from issuing that finding of fact at all. In the grand scheme of things, of course, it doesn't matter: he was going to get desysopped with or without that finding of fact. His self-unblocks sealed that deal. I suppose I could blame Jytdog for writing one-sided workshop proposals, or the committee for taking them at face value, or myself for assuming there would be enough eyes on that case to ensure that one-sided FoFs would get weeded out, but ultimately it's water under the bridge.

Anyway, you don't need to respond to all this; I just wanted you to know where I was coming from. I don't plan to comment any further on it on the noticeboard page. What's done is done, and there's plenty of other work for us all to go and do. I've got an article about a Michael Jackson song to write. Best, 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello Boing! said Zebedee,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!


Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being an admin with integrity! Huggums537 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of HornetsMike

I see that you blocked SwarmZone (talk · contribs) back in July 2018 so I thought about reporting it to you, because I see no reason to open an SPI. Looks like HornetsMike (talk · contribs) (SwarmZone's master account) is back with with a new sockpuppet account – Mike HORNETS Today (talk · contribs). It is evident from the editor's broken English and the username itself that it is the same person. While the Editor Interaction Analyser does not give any good results linking "Mike HORNETS Today" to "HornetsMike", it is a completely different situation in linking "Mike HORNETS Today" to "SwarmZone" as most pages were edited by both at least once. He even admitted his block evasion in his talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look a bit later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23, I see you CU blocked Mike HORNETS Today and some others. There was an additional attempt at socking after your blocks via WP:ACC, so you may want to consider blocking the underlying range if there isn't collateral. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pyramid

No worries, I see how this works.

Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:2AC0:F100:1D59:215B:C16A:9EE1 (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Chandra Shekher Mishra...

...appears to have reappeared as HardSunBadMoon. A sock puppet inquiry has been started. Listed as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/157.43.83.254 because when filed, that was the oldest identified possible sock. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
At Comments for the HSBM sock puppet inquiry, HSBM confessed to having been Chandra Shekher Mishra, and consequently blocked. The investigation continues as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chandra Shekher Mishra to see if any other puppets were created. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, interesting, thanks for the update. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Wbrasp

I was reading the article SAFE Network which suddenly disappeared and I wondered why. It seems the reason is that it was edited by user:Wbrasp who was suspected of being a sock puppet,perhaps for using a VPN connection. Did you even check if the used indeed connected from a VPN and got accidentaly blocked or if it really was the home ip of the blocked user?

Even so, I find it very weird that articles get speedy deleted for having minor edits from blocked users Fuelbottle (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that deletion, and as I'm not a Checkuser I do not have the ability to check the editor's IP details (and I was not responsible for the block either). Also, the article was not deleted just because a suspected sock made minor edits, but because the same editor using a different sock account created it - see User:HarryLeap and User:Wbrasp. Whether or not Wbrasp is genuinely a sock of the same editor I don't know, but HarryLeap is confirmed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok. The edits of the page is now hidden from non-admins so it's not possible for me to see the details of who created and edited, but I thought the article itself was good, so I've added it for deletion review. Fuelbottle (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Out of line unblock

Please explain your reasoning for unblocking IHTS after the community decided that he should be blocked. WP:CBAN and WP:NEVERUNBLOCK are clear, and neither Iridescent nor you have the authority to rewrite policy. There seems to be a pattern of administrators throwing caution to the wind when it comes to dealing with "established" users. Nihlus 13:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I have already explained the reasoning behind my unblock in some detail at the editor's talk page. As I said there, there was no Community ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why you think those policies do not apply in this situation. Also, WP:CBAN is not open for your own interpretation. Let me point you to the salient points as I don't believe you've read the policies: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Even if you don't want to consider it a ban, it is a community sanction and should not be altered without consulting with the community. Let's check WP:NEVERUNBLOCK: Unblocking will almost never be acceptable... When the block is implementing a community sanction which has not been successfully appealed. Where does the confusion lie? Nihlus 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, feel free to ignore this. I am sure I will be unsatisfied with whatever answer you come up with. Whether this continued issue goes for clarification at one of the Village Pumps or ends up at Arbcom, I don't expect you or any other administrator to take the appropriate responsibility for your/their handling of this situation. Feel free to remove this section from your talk if you wish. Nihlus 13:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The consensus of the ANI discussion was "OK, this has gone on long enough and the consensus is as overwhelming as I've ever seen when it comes to a long-term contributor. User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely (not infinitely) blocked. This is not an AE action, and any admin is free to overturn this block should IHTS submit an unblock request or UTRS appeal which either makes a convincing case that there won't be a repeat of the issues, or that the consensus to block was based on false information. I urge (but don't order) IHTS not to submit any unblock request unless and until the issues raised here have been addressed, as if there's a perception that an unblock will cause the underlying issues to flare up again it's likely to end badly" (my emphasis). That was not challenged.

The block message at the editor's talk page included "Per my closing comments at ANI, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "undefined", not "infinite", and I give any admin explicit permission to overturn this block if you can convince them that restoring your permissions won't lead to a repeat of the same issues." That, also, was not challenged.

I believe that Iridescent acted in line with policy in his judgment of consensus and his block (neither of which, I stress again, were challenged). And that I acted in line with the consensus and block as stated. The policies to which you refer are intended to apply, as far as my reading goes (and my experience of following the relevant discussions at the time) to users who are already indef blocked and who are then referred to ANI/AN for review, to long-term troublemakers, etc - and not to every editor who is blocked by an admin as a result of an ANI/AN report. If the latter were true, it would eliminate the concept of administrator discretion (and part of the RfA process is to assess our abilities and trustworthiness to exercise such discretion) and would clutter up ANI/AN with every single unblock request ever made that resulted from an ANI/AN report.

For me, my primary aim as an admin is to assist those who work hard to build our encyclopedia - and, yes, a proven track record of doing that makes a significant contribution to my deliberations. In addition, in this case I am completely convinced that the problems leading to the block will not recur. And that, to me, means that my unblock will lead to significant improvements for the encyclopedia. Isn't that what we all want, surely?

And no, I do take full responsibility for my action (and I'm disappointed by your apparent assumption that I would not), and I have no intention of removing this section as you have every right to question my decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that if my answer does not satisfy you, I am genuinely sorry, but I hoped that most would see that unblocking a long-term quality contributor who has made convincing commitments to not repeating the behaviour that got them blocked would be a win-win move. And as part of my taking responsibility for my unblock, I am certainly prepared to reverse my decision if it doesn't work out. Anyway, try as I might, I accept I can never satisfy everyone (which is something I learned when I got married a long time ago ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)Marriage, also—or rather, the screaming babies that evolve into screaming teenagers that tend to spring from marriage—gives one the patience of a saint does it not; a quality very much on display here! ——SerialNumber54129 19:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks. Yes, children... and after that come grandchildren! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_33&oldid=880917899"