User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 15

=Oct 2012=

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Excelerol
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)
 * Yeah, not a bad idea - tis done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk)

FYI Unblock request
..cropped up a moment ago at User talk:86.160.211.58 that you may want to see. Letting you know in case it is useful. Cheers, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll watch it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thai names
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)
 * He would indeed be correctly referred to as Mr. Surapong. Don't know about Manchester, but November Liverpool meet is very likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For someone who's very busy that was a very quick response. Thanks! Bazonka (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just happened to be checking before I went to bed ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 5 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)

ANI
You want to look at this? The IP just doesn't get it. I've tried telling them to use DRN and it has only resulted in a string of insults on my talk page and there. I'm on the border of just blocking, but since he has been busy insulting, it would look proper if that is what I thought was best. He is likely right on the merits of his argument but refusing to use DRN and just insulting and threatening other editors isn't an acceptable means to deal with the issue, and it appears I have failed to get that point across. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Yadav
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)
 * I've replied on your Talk page - it's easier to follow if we keep it all in one place. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

oops
Sorry about that. So much for my "great" mind. Nobody Ent 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've unblocked now too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IP block, if you are around
Can we zap User:173.189.34.32? Ongoing disruptive, rapid fire vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - 24h. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta muchly. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are still editing? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 8 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'm thinking that they'll get bored fiddling with their own page. B!sZ may have gone offline. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm just trying to do my paid work too ;-) Talk page access revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paid work: it isn't something that I am accustomed to! - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA
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)
 * The trouble is, I don't think it can be fixed by the Community - because it's the Community that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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  Caldron  13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Innocent lapse of syntax - a disgusting  error for a specialist  in  linguistics. At  least  it  wasn't  a PA... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Boing is correct, the problem is us, the community. I had mistakenly thought Cunard was an admin, and obviously isn't (I'm just too tired for this mess), but it doesn't matter.  In particular, I think that kind of overly detailed and verbose voting should have drawn protests by more than just me.  Someone hatted it, he reverted it.  To me, he has been much more disruptive that some of our more "famously disruptive" editors who were dragged to ANI and Arb. The response has been uneven, to say the least. I don't get why it is tolerated.  To me, it should be warning then sanction worthy at the least, but I feel like I'm pissing into the wind.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:48, 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  Caldron  20:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is part of the problem, people are saying, "Well, now that I know, I don't support him so the disruptive manner was ok". If you had been the nominator, would you feel the same way?  I'm neutral and had weakly supported based on the noms only.  He had actually opposed me at RfA, and we never cross paths, so I'm not emotionally invested in him.  Actually, this has nothing to do with the candidate.  I have seen Malleus dragged to Arb and ANI for less.  What bothers me is that all of a sudden no one sympathizes with the candidate, so activity they would normally protest against, now is ok. Double standard.  It is that double standard that should bother you, of all people.  I've seen you go on a tear when others are treated differently, and if you didn't have a strong opinion about the candidate, I can imagine you would have a strong opinion as to the amount and type of drama found there.  If you can, go substitute the names in that discussion, walk in a mile in someone else's shoes, and see if you still feel the same way.  If we allow people to be disruptive because it suits our purposes, then we can't complain when that disruption works against our purposes.  There is a word for that. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:21, 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  Caldron  22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But that isn't the question. Would you feel the same way if you were a strong supporter of this nominee?  That is the question.  Are we, collectively, guilty of maintaining a double standard here and allowing behavior that we normally wouldn't simply because popular opinion has turned against him?  I think the community as a whole, is doing exactly that.  That is not equity, and that is not something I just stand without questioning it.  Loudly.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To add another point, Kiefer was blocked at my RfA for what I consider to be much less "disruption", and I ended up having to speak out at ANI to get his talk page access restored. How is that fair?  The only difference is that I was in good favor, and now Simga isn't.  THAT is the de facto definition of a double standard. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:12, 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  Caldron  09:24, 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:YatesSkates
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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

AN
Hi Boing, I saw your note on my talk page about the AN. I commented there, but User:Nobody_Ent removed everything I wrote. 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 Ent 16:16, 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)
 * Actually, Ent has put your comments back now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And no worries about it all - wanting to help editors is a big part of why I ran for admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say its nice to see an admin helping an IP even when it means going against another admin. --Malerooster (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouting
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 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.  darwin bish  BITE 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Wow, that is serious fish! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Specific into the details for deleting.
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)
 * OK, I'll have a look - but don't revert my changes as "vandalism" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I can see they specific two places very close to each other - I've restored it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 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)
 * Already done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin abuse
Please notice the following edit 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 IP is evading an indef-block Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ)
 * OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry!
sorry about it was completely unintentional - i think it was bit of lag in my browser refresh realigned the links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no prob! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Paradise World Tour FYI
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)

User:Tribal44
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”, “Knock it off and stop trolling", and “Please stop trolling”. 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. 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.” 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). She removed it and called me a jerk: "“Then don't post on my talk page or revert every edit I make then. Jerk.”  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", 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. 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 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44


 * @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.

Tribal44 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44


 * 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)
 * Sorry, I really haven't had time to look at this today - please be patient and I'll try to help as soon as I can. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:34, 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)

FYI
I ended up indeffing Andycjp. Placed my block up for review on WP:ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It's sad it came to this, but I don't think you had any choice really. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pauper's CU
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)
 * Ha, I like it :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at 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! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  08:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-requesting Deletion of Barnard Solix Syndrom
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)
 * Ah yes, good bit of detective work there! I've deleted it as CSD:A10, new article that duplicates an existing one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks! Jonathanfu (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

your revert without an edit comment
At the administrator's noticeboard you reverted an edit of mine without explanation. Was this a mistake? Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 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)

User block templates
Re. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&type=logging&ids=45239442], maybe vaublock is what you were looking for? Just so you know that there is such a template.  It Is Me Here   t / c 10:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request
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&zwj;水 12:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lists of names
Is a list such as List of Surnames of Gomantak Maratha and Naik Maratha really encyclopedic? It does have one source, sort of, but I dread to think how big such things could become. We can never ensure completeness, nor accuracy, nor exclusivity. What purpose do they serve? Are they not a form covered by the spirit of WP:NOTDIR? - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been meaning to get back to you on this, but you know how things have developed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
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. AutomaticStrikeout 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Adityasaxena.corp's unblock request
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&zwj;水 10:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, you big softy :-) Yeah, seems fine - if they agree to what was asked, I don't think we can demand more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 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&zwj;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! –  Richard  BB  14:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem - always happy to help if I can. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Transistor
nothing to contest, this is not politics. transistor is transfer resistor, and he did not tell you how he did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.109.185 (talk) 14:41, 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? –  Richard  BB  14:44, 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)
 * Ah, I see he has done it again, so I have protected the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 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.

PS: and my language is pathetic, you naughty naughty boy,..I'll eat you...:))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.99.247 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

YGM
Sent you a mail regarding a possible revdel. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good faith
Re your comment to me at Talk:Transistor, you could do with a dose of agf yourself when assessing my reasoning. Two admins arguing over its edits - troll's heaven.  Spinning Spark  16:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

English
"I don't think it can be fixed by the Community" - Boing

I think it can't be fixed by the community

Yep, I learnt that about three months ago....I know...tell me about it..it IS a funny language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.99.247 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Wahaj khan
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)

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 Notability (organizations and companies), and the article would need to be supported by multiple independent sources as described at 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 Conflict of interest) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

About: User talk:Markiko
Hi Boing!

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.

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

In appreciation

 * That's very kind, thank you - I really don't like blocks, but sometimes the eventual outcome is pleasing :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As is said in India, 'No mention'. 'Pleasing' is an understatement. Oh! This may seem stupid of me, but I recently awarded an editor for hard work, but even moreso for his name, which had me in stitches for 15 solid minutes and helped clear my sinusitis. :) ~© Djathink imacowboy  12:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Malicious block"
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 Mac 21:57, 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)
 * I don't recall asking for your opinion - if you have anything worth saying, there's a thread at ANI. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm asking you a question. Not one that you're able to answer, seemingly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so disingenuous - the opinion was clearly implicit in the question. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 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)
 * Please don't be so arrogant as to tell me what I'm saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 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)
 * OK, sounds fair enough - heads are hot right now, and I expect we can have a much friendlier discussion at a later time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 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 Mac 22:12, 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)
 * Gosh, we're really more screwed that I suspected if that's the attitude. Sad.--Scott Mac 22:31, 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 Mac 22:53, 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)

AN/I
Please see the following thread at AN/I. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What's best for Wikipedia now
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 Ent 22:25, 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)

User:Tribal44
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”, “Knock it off and stop trolling", and “Please stop trolling”. 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. 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.” 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). She removed it and called me a jerk: "“Then don't post on my talk page or revert every edit I make then. Jerk.”  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", 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. 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 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44


 * @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.

Tribal44 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44


 * 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)
 * Sorry, I really haven't had time to look at this today - please be patient and I'll try to help as soon as I can. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:34, 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)

Good move. I did basically the same thing, for most of the same reasons, a while ago. I make a remark now and then but have essentially stopped contributing content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I appreciate your thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lists of names
Is a list such as List of Surnames of Gomantak Maratha and Naik Maratha really encyclopedic? It does have one source, sort of, but I dread to think how big such things could become. We can never ensure completeness, nor accuracy, nor exclusivity. What purpose do they serve? Are they not a form covered by the spirit of WP:NOTDIR? - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been meaning to get back to you on this, but you know how things have developed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Wahaj khan
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!

 * 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! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:30, 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)
 * Hi. Thanks for letting me know - but I won't be taking any further part in that discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

this it *not* the time for cowboy admins to be - clearly no need for civility there - and you didn't even have to say "fuck" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, you're better than that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just being civil -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream, see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I appreciate your thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 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)
 * Hehe, thanks - we'll see how things with ArbCom go -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadness
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&zwj;水 10:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words - I will reconsider my position after the ArbCom elections. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 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)
 * Thanks, that's very kind of you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What Yunshui said. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Edit: what Yunshui, Martinevans123, and pretty much everyone else commenting on this unfortunate situation said. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Observation
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)

An unfortunate situation
I don't blame you and support your decision. I'm trying to convince Jclemens to recuse himself from the current situation, but it appears I have little support. It looks like you, John, Drmies, Floquenbeam and others have stopped editing for now, and I know of several more who are about to do. I stopped working on articles, but still trying to talk some sense into some folks. I may yet be forced to consider the same tactic if my appeal falls on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:35, 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)

Marcel Leroux
Can you userfy this article for me please. I have no idea why a person who has authored so many books was deleted, he easily passes wp:author Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not active as an admin right now - see the message at the top of this page. You'll need to ask another admin if you would like it userfied. But if you want to know why it was deleted, see the Deletion Discussion and the Deletion review. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read through the AfD, and particularly the associated DRV where this was looked at in depth. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't linked directly at the AfD, but here it is: Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_11. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 24 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)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Treats and Reformation today
'tis the season Sharing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

=Nov 2012=

Wikipedians
You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  10:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of Admin Powers to ban me repeateadly
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.
 * User talk:Sitush/Archive 5 Section Baid
 * Now Lets look at this discussion on my talk page where you actively participate with Sitush regarding the same article -Baid, and compliment him
 * Now lets look at the page history of article Baid and your own contributions along with Sitush
 * See my edits ....Yours Sitush

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)
 * Yet you say to me here again in your latest block on me You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeatedly making bad faith attacks against another editor, Sitush, after having been warned and blocked for exactly the same thing before you block me because I provide 10 diffs of Sitush deleting my edits ...although you wouldent find my delets of Sitush's contributions . Apparently You don't find repeated deletions of a co editor uncivil ?
 * Go complain at WP:ANI then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 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.

Now lets look at these three diffs I repair (not add) a Punjabi spelling on 11th March  ,Immediately thereafter in  JanetteDoe deletes this   without not knowing herself  where or what exactly the rule is, she askss/report to you "At Talk:Khattar, borderline PA.  I've added the caste warning template.  Also, can you find the link to the specfic rfc or policy decision for removing Indic scripts?  I've looked but haven't been able to locate a specific link, which would be useful to add to talk pages when the subject comes up" she quips. You go a step further and gladly offer to oblige to ban me .But wait you yourself dont know where the Indic script removal decision is yourself "I'm really not sure where the Indic script removal decision was made, but I'll look for it when I have the time and will let you know if I find it ". Is this civil or uncivil ? an editor deletes my edit ,without knowing the rule, reports to you , you dont know the specific rule yourself and support her. Now lets look at the way the ban on me is imposed on me my edits on this article Khani 100 asks for a protection lock on 22nd july 2011 because he says "Dear Editors, I am requesting semi-protection for this article as in my experience, at various times people (prob belonging to some of the prominent families of this tribe) keep on adding various 'vanity' items to it and changing it, by inserting either unverifiable data or long lists and family trees". I am not the editors he could be refering to because durying this period I have only made 1  edit and and that too only an indic script correction not pertaining to his complaint .I then make an edit in support of Khani on 11th March 2012, which with Due shining light Janette Doe gets be banned by You. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khattar&diff=481322778&oldid=481320963 Which exact editor did I attack, you never clarified. As an admin you dident think it necessary to state which editor I attacked since you banned me for] ? You support deletion of my edits without knowing the exact rule yourself, you ban me without stating which editor I dident exhibit good faith to...you use uncivil invective for me , wink , support baiting ....surely none of this is civil or good faith far from being even .Intothefire (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No Offence but if have been following this from the sidelines, and can honestly say the swipes and attemted bismirchment by Intothefire of User:Sitush is really out of order. This is just plain WP:Bad Faith. Just my two cents. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 17:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Definite description and uniqueness
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 .Wolfowitz  14:57, 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  .Wolfowitz  15:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The incident that is currently at ANI! Now stop badgering me please - further badgering will be removed without reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved
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)


 * You already answered on ANI so no need to repost here and I disagree but this will peter out by itself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 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)
 * Okie dokie thanks for the reply. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo
Mentioned you at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Pesky's wording is a bit vague but I am pretty sure the civility issue that has affected both of us is a part of their concern. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 6 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!
 * Or, maybe I could just whine--please! Please don't leave! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * One of the candidates? Sounds like a nice fellow, you should buy him a drink. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you need to be an early bird? - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 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. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( 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. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 16:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Laptop
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)
 * Hm. This sounds like a case of overindulging at a wikimeet - never heard of anyone doing that before. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a big relief! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We were all completely sober Sitush! Honest! Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When is it that you, might, un-resign? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 27 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)
 * That's good to hear. I think we all know who's prospects you have mind... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate guide
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)
 * Actually, I'm thinking of changing my mind and supporting Jclemens - hahahaha! OK, sorry, I'll be serious - I'm not going to change my guide, and have offered a comment at User talk:Elen of the Roads -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to contact you directly
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)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, that's very kind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

=Dec 2012=

Template:Pashtuns
Can you please protect this template again because 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)
 * 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)
 * Ok, thanks. However, the person behind that IP is who got blocked indefinitely. Compare these two diffs and see:  --KunwaazTajik (talk) 01:47, 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)

ARS MfD
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&#39;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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 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. Ryan Vesey 05:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI mention
You've been mentioned at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak
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)


 * Hate to see you taking a break for my own selfish reasons, but I understand. My job is about to get 14 hours a day staring in a month, so I will be forced to limit myself to mainly editor type stuff, but that is probably a good thing for variety, and it will only last 3 or 4 months.  I've already learned you have to change up or it gets easy to get in a rut and get frustrating. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:57, 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)

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne
I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Decemberween
It's the only holiday I celebrate this time of year, but I celebrate it with family and friends. If you lived closer, you would be invited as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you were in Bangkok, you'd be invited round for, well, beer - I'll dedicate the next one to Decemberween :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fifty-five days after Halloween! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good enough reason for a beer! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus!!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours "Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....


 * Thank you. About all I know in Welsh (despite being a quarter Welsh) is "nos da", so instead I'll have to offer you "สวัสดีปีใหม่" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ah yes, I know those too :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you - and to you too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer
Thanks, and to you too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And to you, from an equally warm place :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and to you too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Mt king (edits) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

<div style="text-align: center; width: 60%; margin: auto; padding: 1em; border: solid 4px green; letter-spacing: 28px; background-color: red; color: green; font-weight: bold;">Merry Christmas

This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer
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)
 * Have a good Christmas and a productive New Year, by the way! Carrite (talk) 16:39, 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)
 * Have a good Christmas and New Year too! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about banned editor
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)
 * Hi. I'm afraid I don't really know the appropriate procedure in such a case - it might be worth asking one of the admins who does AfD closures? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Message
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.

Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Heya,
Further to the events on the User:Iamthemuffinman page, he has just emailed me using the email user part of wikipedia. Anything I should do other than ignore it? MisterShiney   ✉    19:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed his ability to use the email system - you should not reply to the email (in case that wasn't obvious ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Thanks very much. See you around. MisterShiney    ✉    19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI advice?
Seems we are both thinking along the same lines Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion. Feel free to re-purpose/rename as you have a likely sockmaster. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll comment on that SPI - I'll send you an email (as per WP:BEANS) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got that, thanks! --Biker Biker (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail
--<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 12:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it and replied, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deathlaser
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, — Moe   Epsilon  18:01, 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)
 * I know all this, I was doing this simply to notify you of his activity, and because he's looking :P Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, thanks - sorry for the egg-sucking lesson ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)