User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 27

=April 2017=

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TheDJ
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
 * The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
 * An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
 * After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news
 * After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
 * Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Deteled 5 articles created by me
I wrote a response in the page of discussion, please read it--Vvven (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with vandalism
I was contacted to add or edit information regarding a Wikipedia page. As a project for school i begin finding creating  and sourcing information for a page. I have come across several of revisions made by User:Melcous Who have repeatedly add it or made it lines of coding without citing proper reasoning. On some lines of revision I ventured into more credible sources commonly used on the database Like IMDB. However, without fact checking the user continues to disrupt the hours of research I have done to contribute to he article. I have researched that one contributor U|:Poweredbyfacet and the above mentioned account seem to have personal issues. I would like both users to be blocked from revising as they are both subjective in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:4AF3:23D6:65C8:8D64:BC95:FFCA (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, I missed this. If what you are experiencing genuinely is vandalism (see WP:Vandalism to be sure), please report it at WP:AIV. Otherwise, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Renames Comment
Theres a couple who've edited Cumbernauld_town_centre that might want to be renamed as well if you'd be so kind. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the one that I could see, but there are some revisions that look like they've been oversighted and I can't see the usernames. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just got a message that suppress-block leaves fewer traces, so that seems to be the way to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameUser
Hi, I can rename just fine from a user request but I get a 'Permission error' when I try to access Special:GlobalRenameUser. Any thoughts, please? Just Chilling (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I get the same from that en.wiki page. I've no idea why, but I've never tried that page before - I always use the meta page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameUser. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool, thanks. :-) Just Chilling (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Das osmnezz
This is getting old. I am not a heartless SOB but I do have serious CIR concerns. That said, I also have to concede that at least one of the issues that triggered the recent block looks like a non-issue at this point. And then there are these piteous unblock requests that are never going to end until we either unblock him or shut down his talk page editing rights. I'm honestly rather torn about what to do here. Thoughts? (Ping - ) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking exactly the same thing myself. It's over-enthusiasm and being young, I expect, and I've seen this kind of thing happen a few times with younger editors. I can't help wanting to give him one last chance, so I think I'd suggest unblock him and make it absolutely clear that one more transgression will mean a new block with only the standard offer available. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the meantime Yamla has declined his most recent unblock request. I am thinking of dropping his block to three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If they can refrain from evading in this next 3 months, I'll feel better about their chances long term, hopefully they mature up enough to not have this start all over. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, a 3-month block sounds like a good compromise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , Discussion is still ongoing. I am very close to unblocking him and kicking this to ANI which in all honesty might have been the better place to resolve this in the first place. My main concern is that given his track record and in particular the huge number of blocks, ANI might end up imposing something fairly harsh. Arghh this is like a bad cold that won't go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The user has not actually commented since April 11, so I'd just leave it at that. If anyone else wants to take it to ANI, let them, but I think blocking and reviewing admins have done all that is needed at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the shortened block. I really don't have much to add. I declined to lift the block because, come on, you can't evade your block and expect to have it lifted outright. At this point, I don't think any further action needs to be taken. I agree, taking it to WP:ANI is likely to result in something substantially harsher. But, I'm kinda meh on the whole thing. --Yamla (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ziv2000
Not meaning to second-guess you, but you just blocked this editor's TPA, leaving the block duration at one week, then you'd changed the block to indef and that you would block TPA if they persisted. I don't know if they're confused, but I am.  General Ization  Talk   23:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did the two things the wrong way round! Thanks for letting me know - I'll fix it right away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please restore deleted page (text) about Marjan Davari
I understand that the Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook. What we are trying to do is just creating a page for Marjan Davari like the other pages which already created for the similar cause:

These are a few sample of existing Wikipedia pages for Iranian prisoners and detainees who have been held in prison against the International Human Rights :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazanin_Zaghari-Ratcliffe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoncheh_Ghavami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Foroughi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Ali_Taheri

Here are some sources for Marjan Davari's cause:

https://www.iranhumanrights.org/2016/09/marjan-davari/ https://www.en-hrana.org/tag/marjan-davari http://english.shabtabnews.com/2017/03/24/marjan-davari-sentenced-to-death-and-transferred-to-garchak-prison/

So I'm asking you to restore my deleted page please so I can create an article for Marjan Davari who is an innocent woman and really needs our help.

Regards.

Free Marjan Davari Campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWeinberg1980 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWeinberg1980 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Immigration@SG
Hi there. The page Immigration@SG was marked for speedy deletion literally when I was still writing it; probably a bot that capture it half way before it was finished. I followed the rules and did not remove the bot tag, instead I put in the talk page my clear intentions; the tone of the page was not advertising at all, and if it was still that could be changed. Regardless you deleted it without talking. Can that be reversed? Thanks!

-Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but phrases like "more than 10 years of immigration experience", "close working relationships with all the relevant government agencies", "strategic immigration advice and solutions with full compliance..." etc are obvious PR/marketing speak and not suitable for an encyclopedia article (which must be written in a plain disinterested style). Also, Wikipedia is not a business directory, and I see very little chance that this company is of sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. But if you can provide evidence that it satisfies the notability requirements of WP:NCORP, I will restore a copy into your user space for you to rewrite in a more encyclopedic tone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you would have put that in the talk page, I am sure it would be addressed. Given the changes in immigration law in Singapore, I thought it could be nice to update the pages I referred to, and create a list of "immigration agencies in Singapore", categorized by the services they provide.  Maybe I started the wrong way, I was planning to start from the leafs (the companies), then create the list and finally update the main articles.  I understand that in the global scale this may not be relevant, but it is very relevant to any foreigner living in, or planning to move to, Singapore.  Appreciate if you can restore it, I will make sure it follows compliance. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would only host articles about individual immigration agencies if such agencies are notable, so there is no point you spending any more time on it if it is not going to be acceptable anyway - articles about non-notable companies are regularly deleted. If you want me to restore the article to your user space, please provide me with evidence that the company satisfies the requirements of WP:NCORP (specifically "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject"). Please also show me the sources compatible with WP:RS to support it. If you do that, I will be happy to restore it for you. Alternatively, if you can not or will not do that, and you believe my deletion of the article was a mistake, you will have to make a request at WP:DRV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one thing I must ask - do you have any personal connection with Immigration@SG? If you do, you should read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking closer, the text in the article was essentially copied from the company's web site, which makes it a copyright violation. So no, it will not be restored. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I will work on notability first for these agencies, that will take me some time; I will re-create the article when I am ready. I obviously took the services list from the web site, but I will make the rest very general.  If I do not manage to get notability to create an individual article (for this or any other agency), I will create then a simple list of immigration agencies categorized by the services they provide; that should be encyclopedic enough.  Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did not take just the list of services from the web site, you took the actual text of your article too. Also, can I ask you again - do you have any personal connection with Immigration@SG? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible reference to recent discussion
FYI, this might be a reference to an issue with which you were recently involved. Seems to be just a user-written forum post, though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's it - if they want to rant off-wiki that's fine, and I think we can safely ignore it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is odd
On your user page, your admin stats have disappeared, seemingly because you are not an administrator. Have I missed something, or is this an error? Thanks in advance and take care. Patient Zerotalk 10:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The admin stats thing appears to be broken - it's been like that for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do you know who may be able to fix this? Patient Zerotalk 12:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea, sorry. I saw it mentioned somewhere, but I forget where now. Village pump (technical) might be the best place to pursue it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that page looks appropriate - I'll drop a message there. Patient Zerotalk 12:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Template talk:adminstats says to see User talk:Cyberpower678. ~ GB fan 13:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You might find this interesting
https://www.bing.com/search?q=triangular+moving+average

You can help me to write a bit more about market/investing indicators. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help, sorry. All I did was remove your addition to a disambiguation page as, according to Wikipedia policy, those pages are not supposed to contain entries that do not have a link to an already existing article. A disambig page is not a glossary of a term, it is a page for listing existing articles and to help people fine material that we do carry. As you can see, it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title TMA", not "This disambiguation page lists all meanings of the term TMA" . Now that you have added it back with a link to a relevant existing page, that's fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Header
Hello there, i think an apology is in order, at the end of the day i can see how its affect can be annoying and certainly taken into alot of consideration with a great deal of stress, more general annoyance though, i understand that.

So sincerely i apologise for abusing this website, have a nice day now! terrible weather here honestly, try to enjoy it while it last i think :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1washear (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

regarding WP:Requests for page protection
I did request rpp for White Hart Lane, I saw you added protect I am not sure if you saw the page or if you're suppose to leave a note on it, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. No, I didn't see your RPP request, I was just checking new users and I saw one of them vandalising the White Hart Lane article, so I popped it on my watchlist - and I protected it later when I saw the IPs come along. I hadn't realised there was a derby match tomorrow, so I've now upped the protection to 48 hours as you suggested, and I've responded at WP:RPP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

=May 2017=

Willing to rename a blocked user?
Hi Boing, I seem to recall you've got the global rename flag. Could you take a look at User talk:Sorenland, and rename them to the non-promotional name User:Youmightrecall? I'm bugging you instead of reading up on how and where I'm supposed to request this because he's been waiting a while, partially my fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you much. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life
This user has returned from their block, and has, yet again, begun edit-warring by continuing to re-add the same information that's been removed (and explained why), and yet they continue to re-add. Surely this behaviour is unacceptable, per Wikipedia standards.  livelikemusic    talk!  22:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a number of changes made since the block ended, and the only thing that looks like edit warring to me is changing "Tokyo" to "Chiba" twice. That was among a number of other changes which don't appear to be contested, and I'd be reluctant to issue a new block just for that. But if it continues, please report to WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on an old NAC at AfD?
Any thoughts regarding User_talk:Kharkiv07? The closer has not been particularly active recently, although they do appear from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus for that redirect - in fact, only one out of four participants supported it (the other redirect suggestion was not to that target), and there's a very good argument why that redirect is wrong (in that there was no Pakistan in 1901). Wait and see what they say, but perhaps starting a new discussion (with reference to the old one) might be the best way to go now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those were my thoughts but it will need now to go through RfD rather than AfD, and I've never had a happy experience there. That's why I don't usually bother querying things like Jakhrani even though it seems wrong to redirect something that cannot be sourced. I'll see if Kharkiv07 responds in the next few days but I think it is way too old for them to revert their close or for WP:DRV to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would have to be RfD now - let me know if you do it and I'll offer my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Arjun (singer)
Hey there, You sent me a email today regarding my removed content from the wiki page Arjun (singer) I'm working on his behalf and I've noticed that some pieces from his biographie aren't true at all. Could you please help and explain the best way to remove or change content?

in your email you said: In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. I'm not quiet sure I understand that

Thanks Lou.team (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Louisiane
 * It was just this edit you made which removed content (the Tamil spelling of his name) without any explanation. When you make a change, below the box in which you are typing you will see another box labelled "Edit summary". You should explain briefly, in that box, what you are doing and why. In this case, explain why you removed the Tamil spelling of his name (which I note you only removed from the lead sentence and not from the information box). Was it spelled incorrectly? If so, it's better correct it rather than remove it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that if I use Google Translate on "அர்ஜூன் குமாரசுவாமி" it translates it to "Arjun Kumaraswamy", which looks to me like it's pretty close (given that there can't really be literally correct spellings of names between different scripts). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit further, I see the Tamil Wikipedia spells his name as "அர்ஜுன் குமாரசாமி" (see அர்ஜுன் (பாடகர்)), so maybe that's the correct spelling to use? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, finally, if you are working on Arjun's behalf, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page - see WP:COI for more details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

deleted spam user page transcludes from wikimedia vexes me
I deleted this for spamuser. Could not see how to request deletion @ Wikimedia. Can you help kill this particular whale? Dloh cierekim  12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Requested at Requests for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks Dloh cierekim  13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and it's gone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

your username origin
Where did you get your username from? I swear that phrase sounds familliar to me. 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (tps) The Magic Roundabout had this fellow.
 * That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming (like mine did)  Optimist on the run (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OBR Disambiguation Page: Removal of Entry "OBR10"
Did you read the summary note I wrote when I posted the edit? I did not remove anything, and I was working on the page. If the convention is to write the page and then link and remove disambiguation, I stand corrected. I did change the order of the entries on the page as they were not alphabetical. Funkihunter (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at your talk page to keep it all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

hm
I identified this contributor as not useful, based on a correlation of a number of factors which I'm not going to mention publicly. I'll concede that this may have been a premature decision; if you choose to unblock, I won't object. DS (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, don't spill the beans ;-) As you're OK that the block might have been premature and you don't object to an unblock, I'll go ahead and do that. If you want to email me and let me know of the other concerns, please feel free to do so and I can keep an eye open for any possible future issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before.  I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, do feel free to drop in any time you're bored - I'm feeling a bit like that myself today, and it's always nice to have someone to chat to. But yes, with all these eyes peeled, they're well watched now (which reminds me of a line from an otherwise long-forgotten movie: "Keep your eyes peeled, or I'll peel 'em for you".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Kishore Biyani
I've just collapsed some irrelevant stuff at Talk:Kishore Biyani while massively expanding the article. Would it be better if I deleted them? - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say delete it - it looks defamatory. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * I'm not entirely sure what I did (other than welcoming you back), but thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being an admin, you interceded for me, that's commendable from my perspective. But you're right, it literally escaped my mind that it was Mike V that hit the button. I will give him a barnstar too. Darreg (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - it all turned out well :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Intex technologies
HI are you willing to create a page for me if possible do let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shusilence (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't write articles on request. Please see WP:AfC for some help if you're not sure how to start an article yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI's
I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that is a sock of. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at WP:SPI, of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think. As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I quickly laid out their editing histories since Shroom's first edit and plotted a chart (I work in software development so this only took me about 10 minutes to put together). They've only edited on the same day twice; the day Shroom made their account (~18 hours apart) which was at a time when FL or Atlanta and I were involved in a dispute over this article, and again on 4/23/17, (49 minutes apart) when FL or Atlanta engaged in some minor canvassing, posting messages on a few talk pages of editors who'd edited the article from the same POV including Shrooms. There's some behavioral stuff, as well. Shroom's archaic (almost Shakespearean) mannerisms strike me as possibly being an overdone attempt to prevent people from recognizing shared mannerisms, they both repeatedly make saccharine-sweet entreaties to "move forward together" while ignoring the actual content issues that produced the conflict, they both seem disdainful of philosophers and respectful of scientists and they both infrequently edit other articles seemingly at random, but show up to edit this article in a flurry. In your opinion, is this evidence or am I seeing things?
 * Apologies if I'm being a pain in the ass; being on the receiving end of a number of baseless complaints, I'm very reluctant to make complaints I'm not extremely certain of, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not had a lot of thinking time today, but I'll have a dig around over the weekend. (But that's another thing we have in common - I did s/w dev for about 30 years.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of us on WP it seems. I guess it's that freedom of information thing so many coders believe so strongly. Take your time, there's no rush. And in case I forget, I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, after seeing a couple more joining in today I was going to reply here, but I see you've already done it and got a result! Proposing discretionary sanctions if there's a recurrence would probably be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I only expected a partial result. I thought that Perf might not have been the main account, and I was still only half convinced about Shroom (TheLog was, I felt, a pure WP:DUCK) but at the last minute, figured I'd just toss in every account I even slightly suspected. The result that they're all related (except, possibly for the IPs which I understand won't be announced publicly as being related for privacy reasons) actually came as a complete shock to me. At this point, facing that result, I doubt that the problems will be ongoing. I had previously expressed confusion at how so many editors could feel so strongly about this, but now I understand that it was just one editor with little regard for our policies.
 * Also, thank you again. I know that behavioral issues that are this soaked in content disputes can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I appreciate your willingness to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was very surprised by the result too. And with the Florida connection, I've no doubt the IPs are the same person. Anyway, I'm happy to help - philosophy is one of my subjects, but I hadn't realised this article was under such an attack. If you keep an eye on it from a content perspective and I watch it for behavioural issues, we should be able to keep it good - I'll keep out of any actual content discussions so I can remain WP:UNINVOLVED as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/pvmoutside
Thanks Boing! said Zebedee.......I think I fixed the statement....Pvmoutside (talk)

as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany?
as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany? i have to tell you the homour is kind of dark but dont worry is not meant to offend anyone! its kind of family guy style humour! please let me do this, this is not for advertisment or any misuse or disrespect for wikipedia i just want a page that looks exacly like a real wikipedia article (this will not be an wikipedia article! just my a subpage of my userpage! please i would be so cool if i could do this! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to write personal material, please use a blog or something like Facebook. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * but people allowed to to do this all the time....wikipedia is full of non serious articles they even have a cateogry see Category:Wikipedia humor!
 * they are allowed to make joke wikipedia articles! and you say i cant even do it on my subpages! what the.... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * what about User:Brsalapa/History project! you want me to talk to a Wikipedia Bureaucrat about your behavior or take this to Arbitration Committee? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've nominated User:Brsalapa/History project for deletion. Now please go away and stop bothering me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * fine sorry.. whatever... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

cdg428
I am sorry. I have an extremely short temper about certain things and I've had a bad personal week. Please do not make me lose the opportunity of Wikipedia without possibility of parole. -- cdg428 Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Test Margravechristophe (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:YMB29
Thanks for your comment, and apologies for pinging you after you had said "I'll make one final comment, and then I really am done here". I thought that in his email to me the editor was misrepresenting what you had said (whether deliberately or by inability to understand) just as he has time and time again misrepresented what has been said to him. I also see that somehow I managed to delete a substantial chunk of the sentence referring to you before clicking "Save", resulting in complete nonsense. If you are interested you can now go back and read what I intended to say about your comments. Alternatively, you can stick to your "I really am done here", as I think this editor has already wasted too much time for all concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought there must have been a word or two missing - it makes more sense now! I got an email from YMB29 too, but it's the same point that you have already answered, so I'll just ignore it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

... and User talk:IEatpeople4Fun
If it's of any interest to you, I too thought that the selected topics of editing looked like trolling, but rather than mention that directly, I thought I would invite the editor to comment on the suggested edits, and see whether the response confirmed or contradicted that impression. Anyway, we'll see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I lack subtlety sometimes ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI - 203.91.192.4


It looks like you and another admin conflicted different block durations for this IP address. I'm assuming that Materialscientist went with a longer block because of his previous 3 month block on the IP address. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:291A:C7EC:8E39:D51F (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks for letting me know - I've restored Materialscientist's 1-year block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

=June 2017=

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
 * Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
 * An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news
 * Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

back and forth
Our back and forth isn't really appropriate at the arbcom page anymore. The difference we seem to have is that you're ok with trusting the arbcom judgment implicity, which is fine because that's exactly why we elect them. All I'm saying is that they haven't handled this case appropriately, in that nothing is actually solved by this sanction. Of course this is my opinion, and I can be wrong, or ignorant, which is fine too, but I still have a right to say what I think. What's the best outcome here? I don't know, but I still can't shake the feeling that it wasn't handled appropriately. Thanks for the discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to tell me what I think, especially not when you have understood me so badly - you are always welcome to *ask* me to clarify what I think, but never to *tell me*. Anyway, please keep this in one forum - I will not respond here any further (yeah, course I will, sorry) . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tell me directly what I've misunderstood, so I can hopefully move forward with a better understanding. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I was perhaps a bit less friendly there than I should have been. Your suggestion "you're ok with trusting the arbcom judgment implicity" is what is incorrect - seriously and absolutely incorrect. My point is to ask what do you think we should do when you (or I, or the subject of arbitration) disagree with the outcome? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah ok I got it - I apologize for my misstatement and I have struck it. To answer your question, I really just don't know what should be done, if anything. I've never really seen anyone who was unhappy with an outcome get their way afterwards, because like you said there's really nowhere else to go. At the end of the day someone has to make the decision, and the rest of us have to deal with it, trusting that we've set the system out to deliver the best possible outcome. In this particular case, I was unhappy with how some events had gone down a few weeks ago and had a hard time letting that go. There was, in particular, one comment by an admin that really disgusted me. I'll share it with you via email if you want, but for now I'm content to try to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was distracted a pizza delivery. I think we're largely in agreement now, that for better or worse it's been handled by the only people who could really do it and we do indeed need to move on. I'm not sure what it would achieve to review a specific admin comment now, but if you want my opinion you're welcome to email it to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne
Please check page Massimo Introvigne I contributed to. Iuliano202 first tried to insert new content as anonymous, ten after the page was protected by an administrator, included again the same stuff as Iuliano202. At first I believed anonymous was in good faith and incorporated his critical references in "Views of his work," correcting anonymous' misspellings of various French names and updating with more recent criticism of Introvigne (anonymous/iuliano202 only refers to criticism of 16 years ago). Now as Iuliano202 this user is systematically vandalizing the page again. Thanks Aidayoung Aidayoung (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After Juliano202's previous attempts to damage that article and CESNUR, including a clueless attempt to get the latter deleted, it is clear that they have some sort of agenda against Massimo Introvigne and against the organization and are not trying to help us build neutral articles. I have, therefore, blocked them indefinitely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for the help with the WP:BLP vios just now. And may I just say, I love your user name! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Block
Thanks for taking admin action. Due to the ArbCom case, should the block be logged at the Enforcement log ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I made it as a standard admin block for personal attacks and did not record it as an ArbCom enforcement sanction, so I don't think it needs to be logged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay to add it there though? Sagecandor (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it should be logged as an Arb enforcement, because I was not intending to enforce any ArbCom ruling, but you're welcome to ask at ANI if you want (I'm heading out for a couple of hours now, but whatever anyone else thinks there is fine by me). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I filed the recently closed AE request, I had not realized he was the subject of that prior ArbCom case . If I had noticed, I would have requested AE action not under a generic ArbCom case, but under that specific case. Then, the request would likely have been successful at AE itself. This is why I'm asking. Sagecandor (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it there, but it was removed . Can you please add it there? I don't want others in the future to not know about this, file a valid request at AE, and be wrongfully accused of filing a frivolous request, when the user in fact does have direct history of sanction by ArbCom on this exact issue. Sagecandor (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I just made a simple admin block, I was not enacting anything to do with Arbcom or Arbcom sanctions. Action has been taken now, and I suggest you satisfy yourself with that and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Tony Spike block
Not sure if you saw this, but might be a good candidate for revoking talk page access due to the continued dropping of legal arguments. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think he's making more threats, just denying that what he already said was a threat. I've responded with a few comments, and I think it's better to just leave it to the next reviewing admin now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the U.K. Human rights as veiled, but you're probably right. Thanks for leaving a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Question
Do you use the new user log as well? That's what I use to welcome New users. I saw your welcome a few minutes after I posted mine on Krazy.Chens userpage so that's why I decided to ask. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a Twinkle welcome message - I think the list of links can be useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh ya I read that earlier. I just leave messages I have made myself that lead them to me or my co-editer for assistance. I've thought about getting twinkle but I'm not so sure because I don't want to be blocked... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, your personal messages are nice - it's a friendly touch. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Aww thank you. And I love your username! Mine's just my fake name i use for everything online to make it easier for people to find me... it's been mistaken as my real name a few times. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Pussdestroyer69yeet


Hi,

I just noticed that you've blocked this user for 31 hours, however I'd argue that their username is a clear violation of the policies. What are your thoughts on that? Regards. 122.43.0.221 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did consider it, but I didn't think it was blatant enough and thought we might as well see what happens when the block expires - my guess is we'll never hear from them again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Adoption Denial
He never replied to my request so I don't care now that he's banned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Aaryan33056 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Yunshui 雲 水 13:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲 水 13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you still watching the Argument from Authority page?
A "brand new" editor has made a shockingly well-formatted addition of what is functionally the same material our sock used, complete with trademark misrepresented and off-topic sources. I've reverted already but... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that and wondered if it was a copyright violation. Can you find a diff for the original version so I can compare? (Although I'm tempted to just block as a likely sock.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the last rev that contained the section this editor restored. I don't think there's much of a copyvio going on, but the new addition said functionally the same things, in addition to the sourcing problems I mentioned above. Honestly, I hear quacking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too - it's getting a bit late here, so I'll have a look at the two versions and block consider them fairly in the morning ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Barwell#Grenfell_Tower_fire
You've removed my article on the Grenfell Tower fire on the grounds that "That's way too POV to state as fact."

I disagree.

The fire is a fact.

Barwell's role as Housing Minister and his failure to progress the fire safety review is fact - as cited by numerous news sources relying in turn on, the testimony of the former chief fire officer of the London Fire Brigade, Ronnie King, as cited in the news report I cited.

Grenfell Tower fire[edit source] On 14 June 2017, a fire broke out in a residential block of flats, Grenfell Tower, in London. Many people died in the blaze, which engulfed the building in a matter of minutes. It then emerged that Gavin Barwell, in his capacity as the Minister for Housing while a serving MP, had failed to authorise a review of fire safety in tower blocks. He was the latest in a series of Conservative Ministers to ignore the report recommending a review that had been called by the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group, after six people died and more than 20 were hurt in the 2009 blaze at Lakanal House in Camberwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfur Towcrate (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted as it was a one-side POV-piece - Wikipedia is not a news source and events like this need to be dealt with when emotions are not running so high. If you want to add a section about it, please read WP:NPOV and start a discussion on the article talk page to see what, if anything should be added, and get a consensus for what it should say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Persistent user
I'm going to assume you haven't notice the constant accusations and complaining at User talk:Evert Wandelaar ever since you denied his/her request to be unblocked. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that was easy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that's the easiest kind to deal with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk page section delete
Hello,

Please let me if OK to delete the section on talk page in regards to block, username change, unblock. Thank you. ( Parviziskender (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC) )
 * Yes, as long as you are not blocked, you are welcome to remove anything from your talk page yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, Thank you for clarification.

This line here confused me at the start, making believe that the admin who posted on my talk page should delete it themselves.
 * "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others.27_comments

So I will delete what ever is unneeded myself than.

Thank you.

( Parviziskender (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC) )
 * Ah yes, that's talking about talk pages in general (like article talk pages), where you should not remove other people's comments. On your own user talk page you can remove anything yourself (with the only exception being if you are blocked). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for this info and prompt response. ( Parviziskender (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC) )

A Heading
Hi Boing! Said Zebedee. I have indeed emailed info-en@wikimedia.org and their advice is copied below. I've emailed OrangeMike, as suggested, and edited my talk page with an unblock request, to which you've kindly responded. However, since your response suggests I start by emailing info-en, I worry this may be a circular process! I'm afraid new to talk pages and the deeper reaches of the editing process. Do you have any advice about how to get this block lifted, other than what I've already done? Thanks for your help. 86.149.76.4 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Simon Dormandy,

The first method of requesting an unblock is to contact the administrator who placed the block. You will see this person's username in the message that appears when you attempt to edit a page.

To e-mail the blocking admin, you may click on "E-mail this user" in the sidebar when viewing the user's user page. To do this, you must have a confirmed e-mail address. Visit "my preferences" along the top of your screen and follow the instructions to enter and confirm an e-mail address.

Blocked users may also, in most cases, still edit their talk page. To request unblocking, edit your talk page and add "" to your talk page.

If for some reason you cannot do this, you may use the Unblock Ticket Request System at http://utrs.wmflabs.org/ and an administrator will look into your request.

In all cases, please copy the message you see when you try to edit that shows the IP or username that was blocked and the name of the blocking administrator! Without it, your request cannot be acted upon.

I hope this is of help.

Yours sincerely, [redacted]

Renaming question
Hi Boing! You've got a magic renaming hat, so I figured you'd be the chap to ask - what's the policy on global renames when the username in question is permitted on one Wikipedia but not on another? As a specific case, have a look at - the name is permissible on de-wiki, where they already have an account, but is a username violation here. I assume this has come up before, but can't see anything obvious stating what happens in these circumstances... Yunshui 雲 水 12:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any specific policy, but in the past I've suggested creating a new account for en.wiki use only with a disclosure on the user page connecting it to the global account (and to the company in this case) - that would seem to satisfy our policy on the use of multiple accounts. They're also talking about "We", so I'd add the condition that the new en.wiki account is to be used by only one person, who needs to follow WP:COI policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Longhart
It wasn't quite at the level of commenting at ANI, but I thought this user was dealt with pretty harshly. They made all sorts of horrible legal threats and needed blocking for it - but as far as I can tell, no-one has tried to then find out what on earth it was they were so upset about. It's not at all obvious to me - their legal threats go on about slander etc., but I'm not seeing it. One of the threatened users was reverting the most obvious of vandalism. Another monkeyed about with categories. The nearest I can guess is that they've completely misunderstood the meaning of the 'orphan' tag. Any ideas? GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll send you an email, so as not to talk about her in public. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed this, as with many things, via AN/I. I appreciate the gesture of good faith from you and so good luck with that whatever comes of it. I do think this is entirely futile; just as a single example, this allcaps abusive comment with legal threat was a direct response (1 month later, but still direct) to this edit restoring a tag and removing a small amount of content because it was uncited, but, which really should have had an edit summary explaining that all contested material requires citation and that removing it is contesting it. I cannot fathom the mentality of the person who detonates like that because of one edit. No revert, no ping, no note, not even a template, but, a ... well ... I don't think it's possible to describe it as anything other than a breakdown. Translating it to a real life interaction, it's about as extreme as the person who starts screaming after accidentally making contact with another person. Both play out exactly the same way; unwanted incidental interaction followed by the one person screaming at the other person with whom unwanted contact had been made. But, that's just mansplaining it. But, like I said, wish you the best of luck getting through to Lockhart and maybe it was just a severely escalated misunderstanding. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Review the reversion by carefully and you will note that what they were doing was reverting an IP who, assuming good faith, was making comments in the article that pertained wholly to a different Amanda Long, a college student who studies botany in Florida. Longhart, if they were being sensible, could hardly think that removal was anything but an improvement versus allowing the corruption to remain, whether or not it included an edit summary.  General Ization   Talk   11:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen your email and replied. I don't think further commentary here is likely to be helpful (in fact I sort of regret not just taking it up with you by email).  GoldenRing (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. And I agree - I'll hat this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem, thanks for the kind words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Revdel
Google translate tells me that this replaced Modi's name with an expletive. Though it's not the worst I've seen I'd revdel if I weren't involved; would you mind doing the honors? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah never mind, the indomitable took care of it. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, you can depend on Spiff :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ismael Ogando
Hi, Boing!. Would it be possible to semiprotect Ismael Ogando?. Although I guess the subject is not notable enough for being in Wikipedia and the article will be eventually deleted, nowadays it's sort of self-publication with a lot of sections that seem to be a primary source. I've been deleted it, but the very same editor, as an IP address, keeps on reverting. What do you think? Many thanks into advance --Discasto (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's clear block evasion by the blocked Cocainaenvenenada/AsimovTrott, and the geolocations of the two IPs support it. So I think semi-protection is reasonable, and I've applied it for a week. I was tempted to just say leave it for the AfD as the IPs' unsourced and poorly-sourced material is probably more likely to get it deleted - but removing that stuff probably gives it a better chance at survival, and I think that's the fairer approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)