This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boing! said Zebedee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see you've deleted this article yet again, per G11. Could I suggest that salting it might get the message across to its promoter that Wikipedia isn't here to provide him with free publicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Boing, you're a bit of a Thai expert aren't you? Is this correct? For Surapong Tovichakchaikul, would we say Mr. Tovichakchaikul or Mr. Surapong? And more importantly, will we see you at the forthcoming Manchester and Liverpool wikimeets? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur that the standard form of address for Thais is Mr/Ms + first name. What we do have is a huge error in the Official Thai-Latin transliteration where the final Thai ล (an L) is pronounced in Thai as N, but is always transliterated as L. The classic faux pas of the system is with the King's own name - almost a lèse majesté ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September.
Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.
Funnily enough, I just saw their latest comments on your talk page and was wondering whether to warn or to block. But as none of the explanations so far has been listened too, I doubt another from me would - so I've blocked for 24 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have provided information regarding edits in June 2012.
All the references are already accepted references for the page.
All the information are quoted from the references.
If this information can't be challenged or contested, then please edit the page yourself, or let me provide information regarding the necessary edit. Coz the current page is completely biased against yadavs and is a propaganda in action.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaazBahadur (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that edits by this IP editor at his/her talk page by adding a lot of barnstars and other misleading user boxes to his/her talk page may be not in line with talk page policies. Beagel (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comments. It just doesn't stop, not to mention the abusive emails about having disingenuously nominated a candidate. This kind of participation on (and off) RfAs is the very thing that has brought the RfA process to it's knees, and defeated every attempt to put it right. If you want some light entertainment, check out the current discussions at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Not sure why my response solicited by Kudpung at the RFA, and provided to his TP in order to reduce traffic on the RFA talk page, has ended up here in the same sentence relating to abusive emails. For the avoidance of doubt BsZ, while I disagree with him about many things relating to RFA, including his own behaviour in the current one, I have not been involved in malicious messages sent to Kudpung. Rgds. Leaky Caldron13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dennis. A couple of points in his defence (for disclosure, I opposed the candidate and see it more from Cunard's PoV). It was lengthy but not uncivil or polemic. Some of it was off-topic. Removing it would potentially create more unrest and polarisation leading to more disruption, accusations of Admin bullying, etc. I've not heard of someone being sanctioned for being annoyingly verbose. Some of the ideas I would like to discuss with you would however resolve this. Leaky Caldron20:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
He has lost support at RFA but he is not isolated, people are still backing him and offering support on his TP. As for the position of the nominators, another issue worth discussing later but I have seen cases where nominators have withdrawn support and/or suggested that their candidate withdraw. I think if you are a nominator you should be aware of as much stuff about your candidate as possible. This includes asking about controversial off-wiki stuff since that is most clearly an issue that the community holds to be important. If you subsequently discover your nominee has not been completely honest with you then your obligation as a nominator is at an end. Such agreement before hand would make candidates relying on your good name think twice about not being completely open with you during your due diligence. The process should be modified to prevent overkill when things suddenly turn sour. Leaky Caldron22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, it was late and I was tired. Everyone, everywhere should be treated with respect and if excessive/verbose !votes contribute to a feeling of being unreasonably challenged, hectored, pressurised or even hazed and bullied then it needs to be prevented. I felt hazed at WP:AN the other day and that is nothing compared with some of the stuff that happens elsewhere, including RFA. So why are we not considering simple measures such as word limits for questions, !votes and !vote challenges? More detailed initial disclosure questions with a short embargo on !votes until answers are received (saves early pile-ons, either way), very simple rules to limit challenge and response to !votes (which frequently spin off-topic) with overspill discussion transferred to the talk page and simple clerking duties to manage these non-bureaucratic processes. If RFA reform simply looks at candidature limits (edits, length of service etc.) that will not resolve the concerns you are describing but adopting some of these simple process changes might. Leaky Caldron09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, you are still getting some things very, very wrong. You were neither 'taken to AN' nor hazed, please please try to understand that. A request for clarification on a point of order was taken to AN, and it's just unlucky for you that something you did was cited as an example, and you must accept the consensus that the action was inappropriate. Some people just can't discern between AN and AN/I. If sanctions were requested or required, the case would have been opened at the latter.
As for The process should be modified to prevent overkill when things suddenly turn sour, more appropriately the voters behaviour should be modified - and they can only do that themselves. They are wholly responsible for the drama they create. Change must either come from them, or they should accept that warnings and/or sanctions should be applied to show them that their participation at RfA is inappropriate and/or no longer wanted there, and it's high time some responsible editors took the initiative to police the process more rigorously. The voters who regularly disturb/disrupt RfA must surely be aware in their own minds that what they are doing is not only demoralising for the candidates and potential future candidates, but is causing far more serious collateral damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Is that what they really want? There's not much difference in that kind of behaviour from vandalising another website.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Boing, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you helping me with Hu12. I have no idea why he's doing these things, but my stomach is in knots right now over this. Thank you very much. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem - he's clearly in the wrong. It's late here in the UK and I need some sleep, so I suggest you leave things for now and if he goes any further I'll clear up and take appropriate action in the morning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI: I also added a comment to User talk:Hu12. I know from experience that working on multiple Mediawiki projects can cause confusion as to the applicable guideline - as they can vary from project to project; sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly. Based on that personal experience, I'm quite willing to assume good faith on the part of Hu12 and assume he just became confused due to the differing guideline at simple.wikipedia versus here at en.wikipedia. My guess is that he forgot to verify which project he was quoting for the relevant guideline, and became confused when others quoted a different wording than what he was seeing. I'm hoping that by pointing out the discrepancy on his talk page, this whole issue can be defused and everyone just move on to bettering Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind input, Barek. As the discussion on his talk page shows, Hu's overriding contention was, and apparently still remains, that IPs are not users, which is blatantly incorrect. I pointed out this misconception to him repeatedly by presenting the various applicable guidelines - WP:OWNTALK, WP:REMOVED, WP:USERSUBPAGE, WP:HUMAN, and What an unregistered user can't do - which all made clear that IPs are synonomous with unregistered users, have almost all the same rights as registered users, and that what I was doing with my talk page violated no rules. The guideline he cited, even if it were for en.wikipedia, are for "old" user talk pages and therefore wouldn't apply to this situation anyway. Further, he created an archive on my talk page without my knowledge or permission, which was clearly a violation of my right not to archive the content I removed. I will leave this matter in Boing's hands. Thank you, again, for your calming participation. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Barek, hopefully you've defused things - I was starting to get pretty angry with him. But as 76 says, even if the policy he was quoting was en.wikipedia, it still didn't support his claims. And while editors (including admins) can indeed make mistakes, what is disappointing here is that he would not even consider the possibility that he might be wrong when two other editors were telling him so and showing him the evidence - in that situation, I would have stopped and thought something like "Hang on, those two pieces of policy look contradictory - I need to think about this." To compound it, he repeated his inappropriate actions even after they had been disputed, and that's very bad show for an admin - we are supposed to be setting an example of how you should stop disputed actions and seek a settlement of the dispute. I guess we'll see how he responds. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
User:YatesSkatesI don't think userpages can be CSD'D. Could you take a look, and also at their sandbox. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, any of the G and U series CSD reasons can apply to user pages. They're clear attack pages, so I've deleted them, and I've reverted their vandalism to a template too and left an only warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bidsar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nawalgarh, Garhwal and Bidasar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Boing, I saw your note on my talk page about the AN. I commented there, but User:Nobody_Ent removed everything I wrote.[2] He did not talk to me about it first. Please see my talk page for Nobody's explanation. I felt that since I was the user who triggered Hu12's actions, it would be ok to give detailed comments about the situation. I will leave it up to you whether Nobody's revert should be reverted, so that all my comments are put back in the AN. Thanks. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
76, if, after reading my reasoning, you think it should go back put it back in. (I'd offer to do so myself but I'm about to go real-life for awhile) Nobody Ent16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, just saw that - I appreciate your kind comments, thanks. Ent has admitted he's technically wrong and you're welcome to put your comments back, but I can also see his point that a lengthy explanation might look like rubbing it in a bit, now that the consensus seems pretty firm. How about putting your detailed comments on your own Talk page and then posting something on the AN like "My description of the events is on my Talk page"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Boing, I'll do what you suggested. I know Nobody meant well, but I feel he should have asked me about it first. I'm sorry for everything you've gone through with this issue and am so grateful for how you stood up for me. You're a really good guy for doing that, especially after my poor behavior a few days ago. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
re: comments at ANI ... in all honesty, I also find trouting quite silly. To me, that's the point. If people acknowledge their missteps, it's a lighthearted way to alleviate the seriousness and tension, so that all parties can relax and get back to the important work of building an encyclopedia. Of course, if Hu12 doesn't acknowledge his error and continues to take a hard-line against both the broadly accepted guideline and against consensus, then that's a bigger issue to which trouting is neither beneficial nor appropriate.
As to your comment ... my concern is only partly with the "stop fucking around", and more with the overall sentence reading as a final ultimatum. I can't help but believe there were better ways to phrase it that didn't come across as a threat or like attempted intimidation. Granted, at the stage the conversation had reached, I think an escalation of some sort was required ... but there were both other DR avenues as well as less confrontational phasing that could have been used for what was, ultimately (in my mind) a minor issue from the perspective of all issues facing the project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, he was absolutely refusing to even listen, which is a serious failing for an admin. My response was partly to try to shake him out of his intransigence and was actually meant as an ultimatum - but it didn't work, so I'm happy to accept it wasn't the best approach. But I think admins appearing to bully inexperienced and unregistered users is one of the things that seriously damages our reputation - and you must surely have seen the dissatisfaction that is so often expressed. It's that, the IDHT attitude (which seems more common amongst "old school" admins), that I think is very much not trivial - it's not so much this actual individual event. All it needed was "Oh, OK, I'll stop what I'm doing and think about it" - and "Oh, OK" is all it needs now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Where trout-slapping is too feeble and too trite, feel free use {{Subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}} for stockfish-walloping. More surprising effect (broken bones likely). Do not use on newbies, but I pride myself it's just right for IDHT admins. darwinbishBITE23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC).
This is a written account of a face to face interaction with the artist, between just like a biography. Disputed on the neutrality, you might want to be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yingjie.huang (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be used to host original research, which is what a "face to face interaction with the artist" would be - see WP:OR. Wikipedia can only be used to reflect material that is already published elsewhere in reliable sources - see WP:RS. There should be no editorial opinion or praise in an article, just objective sourced factual statements - have a look at WP:PEACOCK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Bidsar
Please note that Bidasar, Sikar is another village in sikar district and Bidsar sikar is another village in sikar district. See the version history of the article. Chu86happychu 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, restore the original version of the Bidasar, Sikar as its not the same village. I am observing the User Nawalgarh quit some time. He or she is just creating every time a new user name or without username and editing wiki articles mainly Bidsar. Finally many thank you. Chu86happychu 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Please notice the following edit [3] why is there a conscious edit to hide the truth on this topic on wikipedia? I am trying to catch the attention of an admin with some integrity. I hope it is you. Every time Toddy1 does a controversial edit no one is watching, how is it that so many admins have supported so far his Zionist POV pushing? Surely any Admins with a Zionist POV have a vested interest in such matters and should be excluded from making decisions which stack the deck. For example decisions which include blocking users who have made tremendous efforts to build encyclopaedic quality articles and reverting their efforts. Have a look at what happened to the Crimean Karaites article just before you stepped in. Is the new version really better then the old? Did User:Kaz really deserve to be blocked without a review date after such constructive contributions? Notice how it is the same Admin who executed all this on behalf of User:Toddy1 whose edit history shows mainly non-constructive conflict and POV pushing. Something seriously twisted is going on here. It's as if there is money involved. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry, but it sounds like this would need quite a bit of time spent on it to properly understand, and I'm up to my eyes dealing with another issue at the moment (and I'm also trying to get my paid job done at the same time). So I'm going to have to pass on offering to help this time, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Virtually every admin says the same, meanwhile the Cambridge university scholarship researcher is blocked for shape-shifting reasons (on a block first decide why later policy), and the uneducated cult POV pushers run wild on WP further confusing the issue.62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This is just a heads-up. I've started an AfD on Paradise World Tour and noticed in the creating user's talk page history that s/he created a Paradise Tour page last month that was speedy deleted because of overlap with a Coldplay tour article. You put it up for deletion, I believe. There's now also a New Beginnings: World Tour article that duplicates the Paradise World Tour article word-for-word. I can't find any mention of either of these tours in a Google search. --Batard0 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Boing. :) Believe it or not, I am not writing about the Hu12 incident. Haha. I am actually writing because of new, repeated uncivil comments from User:Tribal44 again. She is the one that reported me a few days ago at ANI and accused me of being threatening and rude, etc. And then you blocked me. :P
Anyway, one thing I never mentioned in that ANI is that Tribal44 repeatedly was calling me a troll in her edit comments after she would revert edits I made. I refrained from ever making those types of comments; I simply told her that I would report her to an admin if she continued making inappropriate edits (poorly sourced, etc), which then resulted in me being called threatening. In her various edits, she said, “You have no proof so knock it the hell off, troll”,[5] “Knock it off and stop trolling",[6] and “Please stop trolling”.[7] These were all about my edits of inappropriate vocal range content.
That was then. But I never said anything about her uncivil name-calling in the ANI. Well, last night, I made an edit in Lea Michele, one of the singer articles I follow. A few minutes later, Tribal44 left a comment on my talk page and told me to stop stalking her.[8] I just removed her comment with the edit comment, “I follow articles, not users. "Stalking" is uncivil, therefore please do not post on my talk page again.”[9] I then posted the same comment on her talk page (since I wasn't sure if she would see it in on my edit history page).[10] She removed it and called me a jerk: "“Then don't post on my talk page or revert every edit I make then. Jerk.”[11]
Whenever I make edits in these singer articles, I put detailed edit comments to explain them and don't include anything uncivil or name-calling. I just comment about why I'm making the edit. But Tribal44 has repeatedly called me a troll, stalker, jerk and other names. Based on the WikiProject Musicians discussion going on, plus the years of reverts of her content by other editors, she must know or needs to know that this isn't just one or two editors objecting to content she is adding.
Also, if you look at Tribal44's edit history, you'll see these types of angry comments from her are not just towards me; she has made them to many other editors who have changed or removed her content. It goes back for years. You can see all the comments that include terms like "knock it off", "troll", "rude much?", "Stop deleting pictures!!!!!!", "good lord!", "ugh", "leave it alone!", "WTF" and even "Stop adding freakin' Miley Cyrus!". :p Her other big editing passion, besides adding vocal range/type to all singer articles, is to change photos in articles, which causes a lot of contention among other editors, thus triggering her angry edit comments and talk page comments towards them. She also will add content and actually admit in her edit comments that she doesn't know if it's appropriate to add, even if it's very poorly sourced.
So, can you please help do something about this ongoing incivility? And to get her to understand that when others make edits or reverts to content she's added, especially when it's done in good faith and for valid reasons, she can't get angry and lash out at other editors and call them names. Thanks, Boing! Sorry to bother you with this. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think this comment on Tribal44's user page sums up the problem: "FYI: I do not like it when random users delete referened vocal types and pictures off of the pages of singers. It is extremely annoying and rude. I will revert it back if need be. Also, I don't like to be constantly "watched" and being attacked for no apparent reason. If you don't like what I edit, then don't go on the page." So basically she's saying, "do not change my content." She considers changing or removal of her content to be "attacks." And it appears that when she uses the term "random users," she is talking about IPs. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this thread is about me, I have a right to intervene here.
That IP is actually keeping tabs on all my edits and just basically harassing and bullying me. Each edit I make, he/she ALWAYS interferes and revert, even if its a small edit. And I am getting really sick and tired of his/her behavior towards me. I do not know what he/she has over me and why they are picking on me out of the blue, but this is a personal attack against me by all means.
I wouldn't be surprised if he/she added my user and talk page on their "watchlist" or "favorites".
If wikipedia has a block option, he/she will be the first to be on the list.
And since the IP user was so butthurt over my comments about them, which there were true, I am going to tell you yet again, 76.189.121.57, please leave me alone.
Tribal44 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
Based on the above comment by Tribal44, in which she called me a "nazi",[12] which is far beyond the bounds of civility, I am respectfully requesting an immediate block of her editing privileges. Her highly insulting comment is in additon to all the previous derogatory terms she has called me (jerk, troll, stalker, etc.), as I indicated above.
Tribal44 has made very serious allegations against me of "harassing and bullying" and "personal attacks" but has provided absolutely no proof to back it up. I have never done any of those things and therefore insist that she either provide proof (by diffs) or acknowledge that the claims are false. An apology would be even better.
I explained above that I do not follow editors; I follow articles. Whenever I make changes or reverts in an article, it never has anything to do with the editor; it's always about the content. My edits are done in good faith, with clear edit comments whenever needed. Since the ANI a few days ago, I have edited just two articles that Tribal44 has edited, Mary J. Blige and Lea Michele. I provided clear edit comments for both of them.[13][14] With the Blige article, "Blige is a mezzo-soprano" was inserted into the article (in the lead) of this R&B singer, and was unsourced. In the Lea Michele article, "Michele has the vocal range of a soprano" was inserted (as the first sentence) into the totally inapplicable "Stage roles" section of an article about a TV and Broadway actress, and the content was not even supported by the source. Following the Lea Michele edit, as explained above, Tribal44 came to my talk page, called me a stalker, then called me a jerk.
Tribal44's inappropriate behavior is a pattern, not an isolated incident. She has repeatedly made personal insults and false allegations of serious misconduct against me (bullying, threatening, harassing, trolling, stalking, and personal attacks). This type of behavior should never be tolerated on Wikipedia. When I started this thread, it was not my intention for Tribal44 to be blocked; I simply wanted an administrator to counsel her, with a warning at most, about the behavior and editing issues. But after reading her post above, I feel that a block is clearly warranted. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You want me blocked so I can't edit? Is that what you wanted all this time? I think you've had it in for me for a while and decided to come out of the blue. It seems that I'm an apparent threat to you. And you are making stuff up. I did NOT say that Mary J. Blige was a mezzo-soprano. It was done by another editor. Are you going to harass and bully them too? You'll say and do anything for me to go away huh? Seriously, what do you really want from me? WHY DO YOU HATE IT WHEN I EDIT JUST ANYTHING?! I mean really. Please go away and harass someone else. Leave me BE.
@Tribal44, I'm sorry, but I feel that your behavior clearly warrants a block. But as I said, that's not what I was looking for initially, as my original comment shows. But you can't go around calling people Nazis and other terrbile names, and making outrageous allegations with no proof. And I never claimed that you added the Blige content; what I said was that "I have edited just two articles that Tribal44 has edited" to counter your false implication that I follow you everywhere you go. Whether you are the original editor who added that content is irrelevant; as I explained, my editing is about the content, not the editors who add the content. I strongly suggest that you stop posting these very uncivil comments and let Boing address the situation and decide the best way to handle it. The sad part of this situation is that, initially, I loved your passion for the types of edits you are interested in (vocal range and photos), but you must understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and has guidelines (rules) for behavior and editing. If what you're doing violates those guidelines, they need to be addressed. And if you "cross the line", there are likely to be consequences. I feel that you have definitely crossed the line. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Then why are you going after me? And I do agree with about letting Boing address all of this. And, Boing, I do apologize. Didn't mean to "spam" your talkpage.
Folks, it's early where I am and I don't have time to look at the specifics right now, but I will have a look later today. In the meantime, can I ask the two of you to stop the back-and-forth argument here, and to stay away from each other until I have a chance to review this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry for not getting back to you. I've had lots on my mind and I simply forgot about this - it's embarrassing and I apologise, but that's the simple truth. Secondly, as per the notice at the top of this page, I will not be contributing further to Wikipedia at least until the ArbCom elections are over - and whether I return then depends on the outcome. If you still need any help with this, I would suggest WP:ANI. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I have seen the business of autoblocks being reactivated called "poor man's checkuser", as it can sometimes reveal connections normally visible only to checkusers to mere mortals such as you and me. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article "Nair"". Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk08:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you recently denied my request under CSD for Barnard Solix Syndrom. I think I may not have selected the right criteria, but after applying the tag, I found that there already is an article for Bernard–Soulier syndrome, which appears to be the correct spelling of the syndrome being described in the article I requested deletion for. That article also has sources, as opposed to Barnard Solix Syndrom, which does not. Would you mind taking a look at the other article and reconsidering deletion? I realize you're probably busy IRL, but I figured it'd be more appropriate to ask you rather than to renominate the article for deletion after a request was declined. Thanks, Jonathanfu (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall reverting anything there, so it was almost certainly an error or an edit clash (I've seen the software occasionally lose one person's edit when two people make changes at the same time). Do you have a diff? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, it is helpful. I see now that I posted the comment in the wrong section. It was a comment that lost meaning when taken out of context. Unscintillating (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Boing!. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui雲水12:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Whilst it may further cement the opinion that I'm an unblock-happy soft touch who's far too keen to give problem users a second chance, I'm provisionally willing to unblock this user based on their agreement to a tailored interaction ban. Since you're aware of the situation, I'd appreciate any opinion you might have at User talk:Adityasaxena.corp. Cheers, Yunshui雲水10:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Much obliged. I'll wait for DoRD and/or Hersfold to weigh in, but assuming neither of them object I reckon I'll unblock him fairly shortly. Yunshui雲水10:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks very much for dealing with that -- you're fast! Apologies for posting this on your page; I only realised too late that you reviewed and declined the unblock request, not made the block. Thanks again! – RichardBB14:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You don't get to decide there is nothing to discuss - if your changes are contested and reverted, then you must discuss it if you wish to remake your changes. If you refuse to, you will be stopped from doing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
As this IP is probably resetting his modem between blocks, is it possible to give him a range ban to stop his sockpuppetry and ban evading? – RichardBB14:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it's too big a range of dynamic IPs to block. But he has said something on the Talk page, so I suggest explaining the reason his edits were contested there. If he continues to make his contested changes without consensus, we can semi-protect the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
no one's saying anything on the talk page.....no one's replying...
I have not done anything again, Boing, it is not vandalism, it is the principle of how a transistor works.
No, it is not vandalism. The reason it was reverted is explained on the talk page - now have some patience, engage in the discussion, and await consensus! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The transistor page does not have a Principle of Operation section, because
a)the physicists know about it but don't want to share it
b)they just don't know how it works
I was thinking about it and came up with a fairly decent concept of how it works, I put it on WIKI, I think the guys got jealous, and here I am, discussing pretty much nothing.
Please discuss it on the article talk page, not here. (And please don't start a new section every time you want to add to an existing discussion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Since you handled the earlier block of User:Farwah khan in reference to disruptive editing on Nadia Khan Show, could you take a look at User: Wahaj khan? He's continuously reintroducing BLP violating material on Nadia Khan. It's not negative info, but it is sourced to blogs, forums, and the like. I think that this edit summary well summarizes his opinion about how to contribute to Wikipedia and this subject, and implies that things aren't going to get better. I've left a number of explanatory comments on User Talk:Wahaj khan, but to no avail. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been meaning to get back to you on this. But, as per the notice at the top of this page, I will not be contributing further to Wikipedia at least until the ArbCom elections are over - and whether I return then depends on the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
Explanation needed for deletion of Financiers Without Borders article
You deleted my article and cited that it lacked information that indicated the importance of the subject.
The article for Financiers Without Borders was brief, but it was just the first iteration, which explained the organization's mission and role. The small amount of information that was present fully explained the importance of the organization.
Financiers Without Borders is a non profit organization provides volunteership opportunities to students and young professionals abroad. I can't explain it any better than that!
I guess you're not all that busy, if you have time too delete my article.
Contact me first or add some comments to the article if you feel that it is inappropriate. Don't just go and delete it. That is extremely rude when the article was clearly not in violation of a policy! Revert the article back immediately!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finborders (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you are upset about the deletion of the article you created, but it did not contain anything that indicated the organization was eligible for a Wikipedia article. Ultimately to be retained, the organization would have to satisfy the notability requirements described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and the article would need to be supported by multiple independent sources as described at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
If you believe you can build an article that satisfies these requirements, then I will be happy to restore a copy of the deleted article into your user space for you to work on - just let me know. (But I would also advise having a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. There was, I passing on my knowledge ato a keen new editor. Instead of a brief guide on "how to stop your soccer player articles", I should have just said, do not sock. I could see that the articles had been deleted, but as a non-admin I couldn't see who they had started them. (Of course, if I was a sysop, it would probably make life easier for me and would also be an asset to the community ... ah, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a pity, as Ghukas Poghosyan was an good example in how to turn a one-line micro-stub about an obviously notable person into something acceptable.
Ah, you're busy. I'll continue this dicussion somewhere else, and let you know how it turns out.
It's OK, I'm not too bust right now. Markiko is clearly a sock of blocked editor QaxaqicMxon, and that makes his creations subject to deletion via CSD:G5 even if they're not CSD:A7 candidates. It's possible he might have made one or two articles that could survive, but most of them were not suitable. Many of them said things like "X is an Armenian football player who is playing for nobody", and one said "X is an Armenian football player who plays for Barcelona and Real Madrid at the same time". A number were youth players. Some even had clear vandalism added. So, a mix of nonsense, hoaxes, non-notable players, with a few possibly notable ones included - we really can't accept someone editing like that. Regarding Ghukas Poghosyan, I hadn't realised you had worked on it, sorry - I've restored it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I've not been following this, but I'd tend to agree that blocking a high-profile editor who's under close arbcom scrutiny and at the heart of community controversy is highly unlikely to be helpful and that a swift unblock is probably a good move. The block was as someone put it on MF's talk page "adding fuel to the fire". However, given that, I'm not sure that unblocking with the edit summary "Malicious block" is likely to be dowsing that fire with water. I'd suggest that Hanlon's razor probably applies here "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (also known as "assuming good faith). It might have been more collegiate to have unblocked with "unwise block" or "ill-judged block". If you did have direct evidence of someone blocking maliciously, then you ought to take it to arbcom, because, if substantiated, it would be grounds for immediate desysopping. Anyway, good unblock, but I'd suggest using the least inflammatory unblock summaries in such stressful cases.--Scott Mac21:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that the blocking admin had been baiting Malleus on his talk page and blocked him because of Malleus's response, it is my honest opinion that the resulting block was indeed malicious - and I do not possess the ability to be dishonest when I state the judgment behind my actions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
PS: As for whether it was an abuse of admin tools, yes, I think it was - but I don't think it would help to escalate things to a desysop request at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Since when is "I suggest you retract it. I also suggest you apologise" baiting? Is this some new definition of "baiting" that admins are now using? (Nor, incidentally, is acknowledging that Malleus should know better, a form of baiting either.)
Why is it not acceptable for an editor to make that sort of request on another editor's talk page, if they've openly and egregiously insulted someone? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So what are you saying - that there now is a special set of rules for Malleus that's different to those for everyone else? I'm not "pretending" anything, but it seems others are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking you, not telling you. But, I don't seem to be getting any closer to receiving an answer. So, I'll happily give up on that line of enquiry. Perhaps, in return, you can refrain from accusing me of "pretending naivete" or being "disingenuous". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sheesh, everyone is so up on the battle stations here. I didn't ask you to to be dishonest, I asked you to contemplate that expressing your conclusion of bad faith was hardly helping the community ramp things down here. The block was bad - unblocking was helpful (I'm on your side) - but why add your own fuel to the fire with an unnecessary summary? Anyway, I've stated my thoughts and I'm not going to press the point any further.--Scott Mac22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you asked me why I commented as I did, and I told you. I'm fucking sick of the "fake civility" brigade, and I have no intention of toeing your line. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When cooler heads prevail, I expect I'll agree with you, but what I actually think is sad right now is that a person as calm and easy-going as me has been pushed to react this way -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully (and from my own bitter experience of not following the hypocritical advice I'm about to offer you) when your head isn't cool, and when you're feeling pushed to react, and when you feel "fucking sick" of all the tosh, it is generally best to leave the admin tools safely in the drawer. Just sayin'. Anyway, (if you're of age - and its otherwise legal for you) pour yourself a drink and chill ;).--Scott Mac22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I was of age probably before most Wikipedians were born. And I'm not actually suggesting that I'm reacting too emotionally myself. My current approach is deliberate, because I think ArbCom abuse and "fake civility" abuse (I don't know if you'll understand what I mean by that - I don't know where you are from, but America is not the only country) has gone on far too long and we need to do something, and the "softly softly" approach simply hasn't been working. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You fixed the immediate problem. Do you really think more hashing and bashing on ANI is going to improve things? ArbCom has a mess on it's hands, let's focus our efforts there. Also note your Status = Inactive notice and editnotice are incongruent with the fact that you just took an admin action. Nobody Ent22:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, you got me on the "admin action" thing ;-) I could add "apart from actions rectifying admin abuse directly related to the current ArbCom motion", but my notice was meant to be longer term than that. And, frankly, this has become such a big fuck up that I honestly don't care how far it escalates towards including those who abuse the tools - there's been a confrontation in the offing for some time, and it's going to come out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Boing. :) Believe it or not, I am not writing about the Hu12 incident. Haha. I am actually writing because of new, repeated uncivil comments from User:Tribal44 again. She is the one that reported me a few days ago at ANI and accused me of being threatening and rude, etc. And then you blocked me. :P
Anyway, one thing I never mentioned in that ANI is that Tribal44 repeatedly was calling me a troll in her edit comments after she would revert edits I made. I refrained from ever making those types of comments; I simply told her that I would report her to an admin if she continued making inappropriate edits (poorly sourced, etc), which then resulted in me being called threatening. In her various edits, she said, “You have no proof so knock it the hell off, troll”,[17] “Knock it off and stop trolling",[18] and “Please stop trolling”.[19] These were all about my edits of inappropriate vocal range content.
That was then. But I never said anything about her uncivil name-calling in the ANI. Well, last night, I made an edit in Lea Michele, one of the singer articles I follow. A few minutes later, Tribal44 left a comment on my talk page and told me to stop stalking her.[20] I just removed her comment with the edit comment, “I follow articles, not users. "Stalking" is uncivil, therefore please do not post on my talk page again.”[21] I then posted the same comment on her talk page (since I wasn't sure if she would see it in on my edit history page).[22] She removed it and called me a jerk: "“Then don't post on my talk page or revert every edit I make then. Jerk.”[23]
Whenever I make edits in these singer articles, I put detailed edit comments to explain them and don't include anything uncivil or name-calling. I just comment about why I'm making the edit. But Tribal44 has repeatedly called me a troll, stalker, jerk and other names. Based on the WikiProject Musicians discussion going on, plus the years of reverts of her content by other editors, she must know or needs to know that this isn't just one or two editors objecting to content she is adding.
Also, if you look at Tribal44's edit history, you'll see these types of angry comments from her are not just towards me; she has made them to many other editors who have changed or removed her content. It goes back for years. You can see all the comments that include terms like "knock it off", "troll", "rude much?", "Stop deleting pictures!!!!!!", "good lord!", "ugh", "leave it alone!", "WTF" and even "Stop adding freakin' Miley Cyrus!". :p Her other big editing passion, besides adding vocal range/type to all singer articles, is to change photos in articles, which causes a lot of contention among other editors, thus triggering her angry edit comments and talk page comments towards them. She also will add content and actually admit in her edit comments that she doesn't know if it's appropriate to add, even if it's very poorly sourced.
So, can you please help do something about this ongoing incivility? And to get her to understand that when others make edits or reverts to content she's added, especially when it's done in good faith and for valid reasons, she can't get angry and lash out at other editors and call them names. Thanks, Boing! Sorry to bother you with this. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think this comment on Tribal44's user page sums up the problem: "FYI: I do not like it when random users delete referened vocal types and pictures off of the pages of singers. It is extremely annoying and rude. I will revert it back if need be. Also, I don't like to be constantly "watched" and being attacked for no apparent reason. If you don't like what I edit, then don't go on the page." So basically she's saying, "do not change my content." She considers changing or removal of her content to be "attacks." And it appears that when she uses the term "random users," she is talking about IPs. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this thread is about me, I have a right to intervene here.
That IP is actually keeping tabs on all my edits and just basically harassing and bullying me. Each edit I make, he/she ALWAYS interferes and revert, even if its a small edit. And I am getting really sick and tired of his/her behavior towards me. I do not know what he/she has over me and why they are picking on me out of the blue, but this is a personal attack against me by all means.
I wouldn't be surprised if he/she added my user and talk page on their "watchlist" or "favorites".
If wikipedia has a block option, he/she will be the first to be on the list.
And since the IP user was so butthurt over my comments about them, which there were true, I am going to tell you yet again, 76.189.121.57, please leave me alone.
Tribal44 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
Based on the above comment by Tribal44, in which she called me a "nazi",[24] which is far beyond the bounds of civility, I am respectfully requesting an immediate block of her editing privileges. Her highly insulting comment is in additon to all the previous derogatory terms she has called me (jerk, troll, stalker, etc.), as I indicated above.
Tribal44 has made very serious allegations against me of "harassing and bullying" and "personal attacks" but has provided absolutely no proof to back it up. I have never done any of those things and therefore insist that she either provide proof (by diffs) or acknowledge that the claims are false. An apology would be even better.
I explained above that I do not follow editors; I follow articles. Whenever I make changes or reverts in an article, it never has anything to do with the editor; it's always about the content. My edits are done in good faith, with clear edit comments whenever needed. Since the ANI a few days ago, I have edited just two articles that Tribal44 has edited, Mary J. Blige and Lea Michele. I provided clear edit comments for both of them.[25][26] With the Blige article, "Blige is a mezzo-soprano" was inserted into the article (in the lead) of this R&B singer, and was unsourced. In the Lea Michele article, "Michele has the vocal range of a soprano" was inserted (as the first sentence) into the totally inapplicable "Stage roles" section of an article about a TV and Broadway actress, and the content was not even supported by the source. Following the Lea Michele edit, as explained above, Tribal44 came to my talk page, called me a stalker, then called me a jerk.
Tribal44's inappropriate behavior is a pattern, not an isolated incident. She has repeatedly made personal insults and false allegations of serious misconduct against me (bullying, threatening, harassing, trolling, stalking, and personal attacks). This type of behavior should never be tolerated on Wikipedia. When I started this thread, it was not my intention for Tribal44 to be blocked; I simply wanted an administrator to counsel her, with a warning at most, about the behavior and editing issues. But after reading her post above, I feel that a block is clearly warranted. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You want me blocked so I can't edit? Is that what you wanted all this time? I think you've had it in for me for a while and decided to come out of the blue. It seems that I'm an apparent threat to you. And you are making stuff up. I did NOT say that Mary J. Blige was a mezzo-soprano. It was done by another editor. Are you going to harass and bully them too? You'll say and do anything for me to go away huh? Seriously, what do you really want from me? WHY DO YOU HATE IT WHEN I EDIT JUST ANYTHING?! I mean really. Please go away and harass someone else. Leave me BE.
@Tribal44, I'm sorry, but I feel that your behavior clearly warrants a block. But as I said, that's not what I was looking for initially, as my original comment shows. But you can't go around calling people Nazis and other terrbile names, and making outrageous allegations with no proof. And I never claimed that you added the Blige content; what I said was that "I have edited just two articles that Tribal44 has edited" to counter your false implication that I follow you everywhere you go. Whether you are the original editor who added that content is irrelevant; as I explained, my editing is about the content, not the editors who add the content. I strongly suggest that you stop posting these very uncivil comments and let Boing address the situation and decide the best way to handle it. The sad part of this situation is that, initially, I loved your passion for the types of edits you are interested in (vocal range and photos), but you must understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and has guidelines (rules) for behavior and editing. If what you're doing violates those guidelines, they need to be addressed. And if you "cross the line", there are likely to be consequences. I feel that you have definitely crossed the line. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Then why are you going after me? And I do agree with about letting Boing address all of this. And, Boing, I do apologize. Didn't mean to "spam" your talkpage.
Folks, it's early where I am and I don't have time to look at the specifics right now, but I will have a look later today. In the meantime, can I ask the two of you to stop the back-and-forth argument here, and to stay away from each other until I have a chance to review this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry for not getting back to you. I've had lots on my mind and I simply forgot about this - it's embarrassing and I apologise, but that's the simple truth. Secondly, as per the notice at the top of this page, I will not be contributing further to Wikipedia at least until the ArbCom elections are over - and whether I return then depends on the outcome. If you still need any help with this, I would suggest WP:ANI. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Since you handled the earlier block of User:Farwah khan in reference to disruptive editing on Nadia Khan Show, could you take a look at User: Wahaj khan? He's continuously reintroducing BLP violating material on Nadia Khan. It's not negative info, but it is sourced to blogs, forums, and the like. I think that this edit summary well summarizes his opinion about how to contribute to Wikipedia and this subject, and implies that things aren't going to get better. I've left a number of explanatory comments on User Talk:Wahaj khan, but to no avail. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been meaning to get back to you on this. But, as per the notice at the top of this page, I will not be contributing further to Wikipedia at least until the ArbCom elections are over - and whether I return then depends on the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh...I'd say more, but I don't know what else to say. I wake up and finish my watchlist and find that some of the most important people on Wikipedia are going missing.... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
For being one of Wikipedia's most trusted administrators and editors. I find it greatly saddening that you seem to have decided to leave. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you reconsider your departure from Wikipedia. Good luck and all the best in your future endeavours, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Boing, another who would be missed, if ever you visit the subcontinent, the beers are on me! I say that as I don't expect a sensible resolution of issues out here and therefore do not expect to see you back or stick around myself, therefore, the likelihood of you visiting India seems more possible! —SpacemanSpiff03:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. A beer in India sounds good - I did a trip across North India in the 90s and always wanted to go back, so maybe I will make it there again some time :-) In the meantime, I'll wait and see what comes of the ArbCom election. Depending on the makeup of the new committee, I expect I'll consider a few options - to come back as before, to resign the admin bit and come back as an editor, or to stay away for good. We shall see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
On the recent wheel warring
Hey Boing! (or whatever I should call you)
First, sorry if this seems silly considering your declaration you are leaving, but I've written something on the Clarification request the calls you out by name, so it is only fair that I notify you. Second please reconsider. I've very left in frustration before, and it was never the same afterwards. These were people who I worked with and some who had even become good friends. Not to put too fine a point on it, I felt betrayed, which feels both ridiculous to me now, and as raw and hurtful as it did that night. I'm around to talk, if you want, and understand if you don't.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Boing! Don't bail on us, the Empire may have struck back at Malleus and a few other good folks, but the Jedi will prevail in the end. We pirates and rebels need ya, matey! Montanabw(talk)09:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting one way or the other on Malleusgate, I'd just like to express my sorrow at your decision to withdraw from contributing - I fully respect your choice, but losing an administrator of your calibre is a blow. You will be sorely missed. Yunshui雲水10:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And I certainly second those words from Yunshui. In my experience you are one of the most helpful and sensible Admins here. I do hope the situation can be resolved somehow. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
While no sane person could blame you for wanting out of this asylum, we really need you. There will never be a shortage of admins willing to bait users and then make punative, policy-violating blocks. There will however be a paucity of admins with the integrity to reverse them. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kind - we have far too many petty "school prefect" admins around, and they do serious damage. But I don't feel able to contribute any further under the rule of the current ArbCom - I'll reconsider when I see what the new one looks like. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll drop you a line by email - I won't share my further thoughts here, as I don't want to turn this page into a further forum for carrying on the dispute (a lot of people watch this page, and I'm simply not interested in arguing with anyone who might choose to join in) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Looked at the AFD, it should have closed as no consensus. The DRV is difficult to gauge really given the off wiki canvassing which went on. I have asked another admin to restore it to userspace, if I can't get it usable within a week I'll get it deleted again. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
In the above diff ....here's a quote below from Sitush vis a vis whom you are practicing uneven enforcement of civility against me .Quoting Sitush:
None of these sources, including those that I actually inserted, are ones that I would normally choose to use but I was hoping that it might kickstart something, and so it seemed like an idea deliberately to leave a couple out that User:Intothefire could find.
The above is an example of the cynical collaboration you have been indulging in repeatedly with Sitush ...Sitush by his own admission is baiting me , you are complimenting him ....Its only one example I could provide more .
Your unflinching support to Sitush as a friend is noble , but your repeated practicing uneven enforcement of civility is gross . Several editors have been lost in such designing . As to your using the phrase Constant snide bitching in your remark after banning me .....the repeated snide is in your actions as exhibited above .Intothefire (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee - Having gone through Sitush's talk page today ,I see things and specially your motivations in a completely new perspective , I really have no more desire to conflict with Sitush anymore .I really dont know how this will pan out for my further engagement with wikipedia . Although there is much in your and related editors actions that I have grim issues with , there is a term Dharamsankat in Sanskrit which comes closest to the choice of path I would need to take - do reflect on the partisan role and impact of your actions these past months , where other editors have left or been banned/blocked.Intothefire (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure we would disagree about the benefit of those retirements/blocks/bans, but for me every departure of a nationalist/POV-pusher/caste-warrior who refuses to adhere to Wikipedia's reliable source policy is a good thing. I must also stress that I do not support Sitush as a friend, as I only know him through Wikipedia - I support him as one of the editors who have done enormous amounts of good work in turning many articles relating to Indian castes from embarrassingly bad efforts at glorification into things worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I wish you well in whichever path you choose. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I wish you well in whichever path you choose as well . But I am in disagreement with your practicing uneven enforcement of civility or standards against me . An uneven unrestrained protection cover provided by an admin to any editor is tantamount to extending admin powers by default to an editor .So the burden of responsibility is the admins . When this happens anything goes thereon . Rude comments ,(calling an editor incompetent) labels (nationalist POV pushing) , duplicity in using sources (oppose a source here promote it elsewhere) , games(baiting) , belligerent deletions (repeatedly even where there are valid citations or talk pages) , typecasting editors . The result is a licence to exercise duplicity in actions , needle editors till they can be banned or retire . Because an editor is working alone and a another is working in conjunction with an umbrella protection from an admin . Every single charge I put here I will back with diffs . It is certainly not advisable to puff up any article , but it is equally reprehensible to lacerate topics using double standards on citations . Use a logic here , then turn it on its head there . Exercise extreme scrutiny here but extreme oversight there .
Are you familiar with the English idiomatic expression "Put up or shut up"? If you think you have a valid complaint about my past admin actions, go take it to to WP:ANI, as I have already told you - any further complaints here will be removed without reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You wrote "the Asshole..." rather than "the latest asshole", because there are many such insults. The penultimate "asshole" insult was yesterday on his talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a heated argument, and I think both sides need to step back a bit and calm their emotions, and get a bit of perspective on the whole thing. I am not going to support admin action against Herostratus over this incident. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Which incident? The latest or earlier "asshole" incident?
Why not have an administrator leave a note on the talk page, e.g. "Repeatedly calling editors assholes resumes the pattern of incivility and personal attacks for which you have been repeatedly blocked. You will be blocked the next time you insult an editor".... Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in this, I only commented on the ANI thread to say that it was not a block worthy offense, I posted a user notice on Hero's page and justified my comments. I've seen Herostratus around but I have had minimal interaction with him. Maybe you can explain how I am considered involved with this content dispute? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'd started so I'll finish... Perhaps I should have said "not disinterested" - I will clarify at ANI. After offering your opinion on one side of a disagreement that has had few contributors over a short time on a quiet Sunday, you are not an appropriate person to be closing is as "Resolved" shortly afterwards. I'm actually on your side on the issue itself, but your closure was not appropriate - please leave it to someone disinterested (and as it is not uncontroversial, that should be a disinterested admin) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but I'm very unlikely to be taking part in any further discussions on this. As you know, my understanding is that ArbCom's job is to arbitrate in cases where the community cannot reach an agreement, and not to pro-actively govern the community as they did in this case by abusing a simple request for clarification (over a trivial issue that the community had indeed quickly solved). We have ArbCom elections coming up, so my intention is to wait and see what the community wants the next ArbCom to look like - an arbitration committee to assist the community in cases that the community cannot resolve, or a governing body with arbitrary authoritarian powers to enact anything they see fit. When I have learned which of those options the community wants for the future, I will then decide whether or not I want to be part of that community. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
(Cue slightly creepy drug pusher voice) You can't quit man...you know you need this. You knoooooooowwwww how good this feels.
Or, (cue dramatic patriotic music) you can walk out on us now. This is evidence that we need you, more than ever! Sure, there's some bad apples out there, but the only way we can win, the only way we can make this nation website great is by stepping up, working together, and winning one for the gipper!
Hehe, thanks :-) It really will depend on the outcome of the ArbCom elections - I'll be having a chat with one of the candidates and a few other regulars at the next Liverpool Wikimedia meetup. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps if you open a can, you might find out... Why don't you pop over to Liverpool for the meetup Sitush, would be good to meet you. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hah-hah. I'm not very well + have the feeling that at least one of my brothers is intending to come over that weekend for my 50th. If I am improved and he is not then I might see if I can come to some arrangement with RexxS, although my bit of the M60 is slightly off his route. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're not well, hope whatever it is doesn't last too long. As for 50th, my word, a celebration is in order! Remind me to buy you a pint if we do ever meet up, if not in Liverpool, perhaps at a Manchester meet in the future. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us!
Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral.
You'll be pleased to know that I retrieved my laptop. Brian had thought it was Harry's bag, and Harry had thought it was Brian's. I had a nice trip out to Aughton this morning to retrieve it. Bazonka (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the ArbCom election results before I decide whether to get back to action properly, but I'm becoming quite optimistic. So I've helped out with one or two things that I've noticed while I've been here specifically to follow the elections. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you are intending any update to your candidate guide in light of the current problems surrounding the alleged "leaks". I'm not saying it should (I personally haven't made up my mind), but I'm wondering if this changes your view of any of the principles involved in the sending of arbcom mailing list emails. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I need to talk to you about a recommendation you just made but I can't talk about it on wiki. Is there a way to send a direct message that doesn't end up on wiki? I feel you are making a big mistake about something. You don't know what's really happening. Thanks. Is it okay to leave my email addy here? It's public. Mary Cummins (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've sent you an email, so you can contact me by replying. Your email address might be public, but it's probably better not to leave it here, just to be safe. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, wikifiers! The November 2012 issue of the project newsletter is out, and the December Wikification Drive starts in a couple of days. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
Note: The drive starts 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC), and you can sign up anytime!
Can you please protect this template again because X02.163.91.xxx (talk·contribs) who was blocked indefinitely for edit-warring came back and is making controversial edits without consensus. It was decided by a number of people that the girl's image is good and this blocked IP hopper wants to put an image of silly looking students sitting on the floor, like 7th century, this image only represents a village in Afghanistan but this is not how the 50 million Pashtuns live, especially the 29 million Pashtuns who live in Pakistan, where they go to normal schools like everyone else. Plus the area where the students are sitting (Gardez) have many (possibly 50%) Tajik people.--KunwaazTajik (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hey, KunwaazTajik, Boing! is not contributing much at the moment but I've had a quick look at the template. I notice that it was protected a few months ago because of edit warring, and I see that there has been a bit of back-and-forth in the last 24 hours. But, really, it doesn't seem to be a massive problem right now. I understand that you know more about this template than me and that you are concerned that things will kick off again but my advice would be to try and live with it for a few days. The IP may go away or decide that they are prepared to talk about it (again, I know!). Be aware of the three revert rule and perhaps try to engage the IP in discussion. Maybe open a thread on the template talk page & drop a note on their own talk to let them know that you have done so. I realise that this sounds like re-inventing the wheel and that IP contributors can move around. But just try it, anyway. If the problems persist after doing that then you can always report it to WP:RFPP. Sure, it isn't as quick as having a direct line to an admin who knows the background but it is usually pretty fast. Since this issue seems not to involve either a copyright violation or a biography of a living person, if RFPP takes a few hours then that is a nuisance but not something that is critical. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sure. I can agree that the likelihood is that this is the same contributor. But there is a margin of error (anyone can find that image) and we cannot usually link IPs to registered accounts. I realise that this must be frustrating because I have been there and done that. But, please, just give it a go. Another 24/48 hours will not make a lot of difference provided that you keep on the right side of WP:3RR. It is not a nice thing to say but, as with the real world, Wikipedia sometimes works best if you have a strategy. You do not want to end up suffering a block yourself, regardless of how right you think you may be.
If things do continue in the same vein and you are unsure about RFPP then drop my a line on my talk page & I'll see if I can justify doing that report myself. I am not an admin but I've spent a lot of time dealing with situations such as this, usually as someone in exactly the position that you think you are in now! - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I happened to be around, and it's obviously the same person as before, so I've put a semi-protection on for a year - I don't see it as a template that would really require much change, so I don't think forcing IPs to make edit requests if there's anything they want would be too much of a downside. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, strange in English they called Pashtuns while in Russian they are called Pushtoons, can anybody explain? Another thing, don't take it personal, but isn't all Afghans are Pashtuns? As far as I remember, back in the USSR, in 1986 and earlier we user to call them that. Or the calling have been changed after 9/11? If so, give me heads up on that!--Mishae (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed.
Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November.
Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.
Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.
To follow up on what your objection to my statements regarding votes from the ARS, you stated to Coren that this was an "overwhelming keep" decision, in a clear reference to the number of keep votes relative to the number of delete votes. The fact is that deletion discussions are about getting a community perspective. If you were conducting a survey to see whether the public would support a given policy, you would naturally want it to be a representative sample. Polling firms typically adjust results or factor out respondents to insure they have a broad sample of public opinions. What you have with the MfD is the obvious and expected result of ARS members and editors who have used the list, being quick to jump to its defense. On the other hand, the wider community is not as aware of the dispute or its significance and thus fail to be fairly represented in the discussion. In no way should a wikiproject be left to decide whether it is acting within community standards. That is a matter for the outside community to decide.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
ANI discussion related to castes
Hey Boing! I understand that you say you're inactive, but I'll make this request anyways since I don't believe that something bad on Wikipedia (the whole Jclemens issue) is made better by anyother bad thing (you not editing). I noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doncram on Indic communities and my first experience with you ever was related to Nair so I assume you are familiar with the Indian Caste system and you might be able to offer very important thoughts as a sound-minded editor who has experience with caste articles. Thanks with your help, or if you cannot, I hope to see you back to full capacity whenever the votes are in. RyanVesey05:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm on a Wikibreak for a while. I won't be logging in or reading my Talk page, so please contact someone else if you need any help with anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
crap .. I hate when the adults have to be away from keeping an eye on the zoo. Still, I wish the best for you both. — Ched : ? 15:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I just popped in to see how the Arb results went, and I'm having a quick look around to see what's been happening. Thanks for your kind words. I've got a free weekend so I might pop my nose in again, but then I'm off back to my break - a couple of weeks off is already working wonders :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.
Wow, you don't see many of those around here! (But I'm sure you know "bore da" and "iechyd da" perfectly well!) All the best. Hope you have a great time over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidtmy talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer 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. Share the good feelings.
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
My concerns are based on a freedom of speech rationale, rather than being "okay" or "not okay" with the heated points KW was trying to make. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I understand, and on the principles involved I suspect our opinions are probably quite close. On making the points themselves on his talk page, I do agree with you, and I would have been happy to discuss them with him (and was, in fact, trying to). But shouldn't freedom of speech work both ways? Or should he be able to attack me personally on his talk page while denying my freedom to respond? And should he be able to remove my (factual) comments from his talk page and still be considered a victim of the denial of free speech? I'd be more than happy for Kiefer to have his talk page access restored, on condition that he either does not prevent the free speech of others there, or at least does not use his talk page as a "no reply" forum for attacking people (and that includes edit summaries) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The MMA project has over 20 articles recomended for deletion by a user that is now banned. Most of them shouldn't have even been nominated. Some of us are wondering if we are allowed to close these out and clean up the mess created by this editor. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for naming my problems, I will take this into consideration, However, this is a democratic nation, and I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Thanks again for being understanding towards my position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I strongly suggest you drop your campaign to have ClueBot stopped. You absolutely will not succeed, because it is such a valuable bot to us - it reverts thousands of inappropriate edits every day, that we could not possibly cope with manually. If you believe one of your edits was reverted in error, there is a "false positives" direction given in the notification on your talk page, and you should use that to report it - providing constructive feedback helps people make the bot even better. (But as I say, I think all of the ClueBot reverts of your edits were correct, and I have explained what was wrong with them). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Boing!
I appreciate your quickness in quickly striking possibly misleading statements at ANI, on your own initiative, very quickly after TParis found the right words. What is especially notable was your graciousness in avoiding the temptation to make a parting shots.
For my part, I regret not expressing myself more clearly, which led to your delayed recognition of my intentions. I also regret using the "l" word---and not the l word of "Scott Pilgrim"---and now, particularly in the edit summary. You stated something false, but it was unintentional and your strong spirit was motivated to protect another editor and ensure fairness, which is an admirable source of cognitive bias. ;)
Finally, I regret that I no longer have the ability to strike some comments from ANI, now that TParis has redacted the entire discussion.
If you wish to discuss something on my talk page, you will certainly be welcomed.
Thanks KW, that was very nicely said - I can see that I did misrepresent your meaning in places, I do apologise for it, and I'm pleased that you accept it was unintentional. I'd say don't worry about past heated words now - I'm very much a water/bridge kind of person, and as far as I'm concerned it's forgotten. Anyway, I blame Sir Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the Internet - as I said to someone very recently about online communications, it's a horrible medium in which to understand each other! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
User:Deathlaser is on IRC, asking to be unblocked since it has been six months (well, you changed the block settings in September, atually). Since you blocked him and his talk page access is not editable by him, I was letting you know. Regards, — MoeEpsilon18:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deathlaser is a sock account, and he needs to request unblock via his original account - sock accounts do not get unblocked. Also, IRC is not a valid venue for requesting unblock - if he does not have talk page access, he should request unblock via the instructions at WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boing! said Zebedee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
