User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, for example by using the "new section" or "+" tab at the top, or by clicking -> here

Request

Hello, I just need to say that as you unblocked a user named Timothy McGuire, it also has a sockpuppet named Emma Morano 1899-2017. Timothy McGuire appolagised for wrong acts. Emma Morano 1899-2017 also appolagised for wrong acts and will contribute productively so please unblock User:Emma Morano 1899-2017. Thank you. 106.202.47.198 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, I don't see that any connection has been made between User:Timothy McGuire and User:Emma Morano 1899-2017, and I also don't see where User:Emma Morano 1899-2017 has offered any apologies. So how do you know those things? For a request to unblock User:Emma Morano 1899-2017 to be considered, that request must be made by the operator of that account, logged in, at User talk:Emma Morano 1899-2017. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark & Salem

Hello, we just recently noticed that you chose to delete our contribution Blue Fizzy Pop under the assumption that it is a hoax. We want to inform you that it is anything but a hoax and we plan to re-contribute it in the future. Although it is something no one knows about it, in accordance with it's name, it has been created as a new "kink" or fantasy created by me and a partner that will hopefully be realized and used out in today's world with the name we have given it as the creators. If you have a concern or stipulation please let us know. Mark & Salem (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for a user page - see WP:User pages for a guide to what a user page is for. And if it's something no one knows about it, then it won't be reliably sourced (see WP:RS for what reliable sources are) and so is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. Finally, as your account appears to be operated by more than one person I am going to block it, as Wikipedia accounts are for individual editors only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of disputed notification

As mentioned there, I have replaced a disputed notification [1]. Since the purpose of the notification is simply to inform others of the discussion, my replacement notification serves the same purpose and does not get into the tricky issue of modifying the text of a signed post nor in preserving the text which has been called canvassing. I don't see that there is any text in the section I deleted which either relates to how to improve the RD, or is necessary for notifying people about the ANI discussion, or even helps us grow as a community. I did mention the earlier discussion I removed since otherwise people may get confused or complain, but intentionally did not provide a history link. If people look it up, that's their choice. I don't see there is much better we can do now which isn't going to just result in more dispute. In other words, either we leave it at that, or we risk blowing up the dispute even more, perhaps to the extent of derailing the ANI discussion. The choice is yours. I'm leaving this message on the talk page of everyone who participated in the section I removed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good solution, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Restore to userspace?

Hi! Some students I'm monitoring moved their work live, but made a mistake in the process - they ended up moving the content to a userspace page, User:Immigration to the United States. I believe that they meant to add it to one of the existing articles, but got confused. Could you restore this and move it back to User:Hengle/sandbox? I didn't want to do it myself under my main account without asking you. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Shalor (Wiki Ed): Done, moved it back to the sandbox. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Saw you were on the job, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks guys! You guys are on top of this! :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Talking about speedy

Thumbs up by Wakalani

Found out that you already deleted the redirect while previewing my notification for the original creator, talking about fast.

Well thank you for knowing who to count on

Happy to help :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your close

Help me to understand this, please. You mean to tell me that I can unilaterally and repeatedly reverse XfD closures, refuse to discuss my actions, and tell everyone to "fuck off", and I'd be in the right and should be left alone? Because that is the precise order of what's happened here!

I think you misunderstood the issue. Nobody was offended by the use of the word "fuck", and I certainly was not calling for any action for something as trivial as that. Additionally, no one started hounding MP about his categories out of the blue--the whole exchange started after he decided to unilaterally revert a CfD closure. The issue is the user's disregard for consenus and, more concerning to me, his utterly unconstrained aggressiveness and disrespect toward other editors.

If we can't expect and require behavior more civilized than that of a wild dog growling over "his" territory, then we're well and truly fucked. Please revisit your closure. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no admin action going to come of that, as countless attempts to enforce civility at WP:ANI and WP:AN have shown, so no I will not reverse my close. Just leave his talk page alone and you should be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If not AN/I, where should we address pursuing sanctions against this editor for ignoring consensus? VegaDark (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not going to get any sanctions here, and I'm not going to spend a second more of my time on it. Can't you think of anything constructive to do to help us build our encyclopedia instead? Either way, please go away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

<self-redacted>

(talk page stalker) I guess it's a generational thing. <sigh /> -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• In case you have any further interest in this, the "consensus" these two editors claim to be enforcing was a consensus of two editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Jonny Craig Wikipedia

I made a recent edit which you immediately reversed even though I have proof to back my claim up. It would be very ignorant to say it can't be that because he doesn't look that way biologically.. Transgenders are also a genuine thing and so was the change I made. I can provide you said proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapsearcher (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Soapsearcher

You blocked this user after only one warning, and then when he provided a source you removed the source and his talk page access? It would seem that he has a reasonable (albeit far-fetched, but sources can fix that) point. Was the source he provided something completely irrelevant? RedPanda25 13:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The source was an image of an alleged 2-line Twitter interaction, which in no way supported the claim made. It wasn't even a link to an actual Twitter feed, so it's impossible to tell if it was even genuine or who it actually came from if it was. It's just trolling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and it wasn't me who removed the source link, it was User:Oshwah. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

mail. it gets you.

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A little joke I just thought of :)

Take it elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Please read what I wrote for fun, with a lighthearted tone. In WP:ANI, I wrote the following, in bold face: "I am not defending reactive incivility. Incivility is wrong. Incivility is a cancer." "I say the same thing again: Incivility is unacceptable; both SMcCandlish and FleetCommand must behave themselves." "We have no such policy as (pardon my language) Wikipedia:Be the lesser jerk! Our policies are Wikipedia:Civility and Meta:Don't be a jerk." After all this, you wrote: A massive breach of WP:NPA by FleetCommand gets not even a hint of disapproval from you In spite of all the above. You know what would have happened if SMcCandlish was in my place? He would have responded "Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER" right in the middle of there. LOL. Seriously though, both must behave themselves: You and I never write what they wrote. Never. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Codename Lisa, I've come across you only occasionally, because I mainly do image stuff, but each time I did see your name in that context it seemed to be you wanting to mark out some strange "line" in a "territory" you felt was "yours". You really should stop that kind of behaviour. -- Begoon 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) @Begoon: Hi. If that is indeed the case, you will have my eternal gratitude if you come to my talk page and discuss it with me. I welcome rational discussion of my personal conduct, because I know full well that where there is no problem, there is no improvements either. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Quad/Graphics

Hi Boing! SZ - We are ready with a new hopefully neutral attempt at the Quad/Graphics pages. Are you able to help? I will be back in the office on Monday.Quadwikimaster (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for not getting back to you before - been unexpectedly busy. I'll look over the weekend. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

selfe harm threat?

69.126.158.133 has made edits (dissalowed by filter) say, among other incoherence "I want to commite suicide" Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to step on Boing!'s toes, but the section title caught my eye. That's just a run of the mill idiot vandal. The vandalism they were trying to add was in the actor's voice: (paraphrasing) "I want to commit suicide from my movie [insert actual movie name here], I sucked in that movie" kind of stuff. I've blocked them for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just being carful since they say to report any threat even if most likely not credible, thanks for blocking them. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: I should have added: it's probably better to email emergency@wikimedia.org instead of reporting to an admin's page. If it needs further action in the real world, that's what the admin will do anyway, so you're saving some time. There is no harm in reporting things like this, which end up not really being threats, to the email address if you're not sure; they're trained to separate legit threats from normal vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have done this except I have problems with my email. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. All good then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: if you need an oversight email, just drop a discrete note on my talk with the dif hidden discretely and I will deal with it if I'm online. I can always add the post to my OS request. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, P.S what is point at which I should request revdel rather than treating the edit as normal vandalism? I do a lot of anti-vandal patrolling and false rape accusations in a BLP are not uncommon and are becoming more common. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of a judgement call; in this particular case, since it was the edit filter and nothing ever made it to the history of the article, I'm inclined to not revdel, but that's just me: I'm 100% supportive of any admin (Dlohcierekim?) that feels differently. We do have the ability to revdel edit filter entries. If this same thing had actually been added to the article, I'd have probably revdel'd it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC) (adding:) I guess I didn't actually answer your question. Yes, in general I would suggest revdel for rape allegations that actually make it thru the edit filter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Chuckle. I would not know how. I was just speaking of the future. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanna say...

...I love your username! It's whimsical and fun. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you like it :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

World Of Weird

Just a quick heads up; I mid-air conflicted with you on this and reversed your deletion - it's a duplicate of World of Weird so I've redirected there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Curiously, my deletion doesn't show in the history, but it does show in my action log. A quirk of Wikimedia software, I guess. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

MechMaster Katzenstein

You warned this user about posting flashing videos as 'punishment' against vandals; they did it again this evening, so hopefully my warning was strong enough to tell them to stop it. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But no, such behaviour is utterly unacceptable, and he doesn't get another second chance - I have blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, looking more closely, I see he did it several times at different user talk pages - and he'd done it prior to my warning too. I really don't think this is someone we want here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I honestly found them definitely not ready to edit here from a couple other run-ins on their edits, so good call here, especially as they pretty much made the situation on the page I was trying to control last night worse by goading the other user into multiple socks and added a half-hour by fighting them before we could finally fix the damage. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it obviously expired before either of us ever acted on their edits. Nate • (chatter) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as you see I found a lot of other problems too, and I suspect it's probably down to immaturity. I'd be willing to consider a Standard Offer request in due course if there's any convincing sign of improving maturity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely; the immaturity of them issuing a 'scary logo warning' or whatever will definitely age out as they realize that throwing a Viacom logo someone's way won't stop them from vandalizing. They had good contributions, but their warnings really didn't work for here, and in six months, hopefully they'll have cleared things up. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Promotional tours

Hi Z - a list of upcoming tour dates is noncompliant with WP:NTOUR: A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable. It is considered marketing/promotion. The tour may become notable after it ends and the tallies for attendance, coverage and monetary positions are calculated and analyzed. Simply listing dates for marketing purposes is promotion and should be deleted as such. Please reconsider your decision and save us all some time in AfD. Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NTOUR is irrelevant, as lack of notability is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason - and WP:NTOUR says nothing to support a claim that an article about an upcoming tour is considered promotional and liable to speedy deletion. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSA Tour was deletion due to lack of notability, so I don't see how that's relevant either - opinions that something is promotional expressed at AFD do not set policy. WP:G11 is all about style/neutrality/POV, and I see no non-neutral or promotional wording in the article. So I'm sorry, but I stand by my assessment. I can see valid notability grounds for WP:AFD, but not for speedy deletion - I know it can be frustrating, but valid CSD reasons are deliberately very limited for a purpose, and we should not bypass them to save time at AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) I think Boing! made the correct decision. Now, I'm not arguing that the article should be kept because the topic is notable, but I don't think the article qualifies for speedy. G11 is for unambiguous promotion or advertising. I delete things nominated for G11 which say things such as "for the best foo, buy at fie.com" or "Our company is the most customer-focused provider of spinner-widgets in the market" or articles wherein the whole point is to blatantly promote/advertise. Please note that the criteria is "Unambiguous". Of course there is going to be different interpretations of what consists of "unambiguous" advertising, but I don't think you could call this advertising copy. Thanks for all your hard volunteer work here! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside. I often come across articles tagged with both A7 and G11 which do not contain any unambiguously promotional material, presumably on reasoning along the lines of "If x is not notable, the intent can only be promotion". G11 is specifically about content not about presumed intent, and I think that's a key point that is often misunderstood. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason behind that thinking is WP:NOTPROMO, which is policy, and it says (my bold) Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Ticketmaster comes to mind. G11 does apply to Unambiguous advertising or promotion which I believe applies in this case because there is no other feasible way to see the promotion of upcoming events as anything other than promotion simply for the fact that it's in the future, which also brings WP:BALL into play (my bold): Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. Well, notability isn't inherited, so by what criteria is the event "notable" much less sourced to anything but promotional websites such as this one where you book a reservation to the concert. How is that not unambiguous promotion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told that notability has absolutely nothing to do with it? Your argument that "there is no other feasible way to see the promotion of upcoming events as anything other than promotion" contains a blatant logic error, that of Begging the question. Now, you have had my answer, and I will not change it - so please take it elsewhere if you wish to contest my decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Gone. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I suspect I'm one of the harsher admins with respect to promotional content: and I would not have speedy-deleted this. I may have blanked the tour dates, but that's about all. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A note

Through some lazy scrolling, I came to Fleet's t/p where you stated:--No, admins can't see other people's thanks.But, actually the Thanks log allows anybody to check such details sans the particular edit for which one was thanked. As an example, Fleetcommand's thanks log could be viewed at here.This, in no-way, relates to the merit of the situation around the block and or the TBan violation.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had no idea, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

...or [2]  ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Guess who?

Before you start blocking this account, you got to look at this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derpily64. That's right Derpily64 apologized for cyber bullying me. 184.56.47.51 02:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)