User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 35

=April 2019=

flowers for you
You made my day by the term "not-listeningest" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock requests inside headings
So what I think happens here is that the user, quite reasonably, starts a new section, and then just puts their unblock request in the first available box: the subject/headline box. The parser simply treats the === as plaintext if it gets stressed by templates and such. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect the same thing - and the parser stress idea could explain why complicated ones don't get terminated properly. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a "Click here to request an unblock" thing which presented a form with simple text boxes to fill in? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

My editing since January
Thank you so much for unblocking me back in January. I was fairly young when I got myself blocked. I feel that I've matured a lot since then. I wanted to let you know what I have been up to since then. I have reverting vandalism for a while. I was trained at the Counter-Vandalism Academy to become a vandal fighter. I was also granted rollback. I never thought I was ever going to granted that right just because I was blocked before. I also learned a lot about Wikipedia by asking questions at the Teahouse and the editors have taught me a lot about how to become the best editor I can possibly be. My reputation as an editor became positive and I'm trying to become a constructive and a responsible editor. See my contributions and my thanks log for proof. I look forward to contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia whenever I have free time. Enjoy the rest of your day! Mstrojny (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know how things are going, it's great to hear. And you just got another thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
If you feel the same, we can discuss it here too.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'll take a look when I have a bit of time (but I have a busy day today). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hope you got time to look at the earlier and the new mail? this was just to remind you gently remind you. thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, if I am asking something which doesn't fit in policies or general guidelines, let me know. as it's been 9 days. thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, many apologies for the delay. I was ill for a little while, and this week I've had a lot of other things on my mind. But I will look at the issue as soon as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

N0nscriptunderscr1pt
Thank you for having me back. Now I forgot the password I used and I stupidly didn't assign an email address to the account. Can you help at all pls? Thanks. user:N0nscriptunderscr1pt old name: N0nscriptbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.88.147 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you've lost your password, don't have an email address registered, and have no identification method we can check (something like Template:Committed identity, for example), there's no way to recover the account. You'll have to abandon that account and create a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

All sorted - thank you. Wrong caps use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.88.147 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help!

N0nscr1ptunderscr1pt (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 
 * You're welcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:209.209.238.149
For what it's worth, that's an anon-only block, which is odd for a proxy block. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is, how strange. Can you think of a reason not to strengthen it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not offhand. But I've asked the blocker about it; usually Edgar181 does anon-only vandal blocks and such. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was in the mindset of dealing with an issue arising from anonymous editing rather than registered accounts. I have no objection if either of you (or any admin) want to change it to a hard block.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅ SQL Query me!  22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Favour
Dear medium-weight Boing!, could you semi-protect my user talk page for a while, please? Nsmutte is being tedious again. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've given it a month. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do it yourself ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I get your very subtle point :p --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hehe ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Re AN and new user competence etc
Hi Boing!, Fyi it may be worth keeping an eye on the user's contribs, along with the IP after its block expires. I will also point out I think the IP they are using is dynamic, so they may be constantly changing. I have come across these before (and have one myself), so like I said may be worth keeping an eye on. Thanking you Nightfury 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just seen the message on AN, you can disregard the first part !! Ta Nightfury 15:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got all their recently edited pages on my watchlist, and I'll watch for similar IP geolocations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation
Hi, Was dealt with quickly but see. Thanks, RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Mjahangir777
It occurred to me that Mjahangir777 posted his email address on HistoryofIran's talk page so I looked it up. Turns out that address is associated with a Twitter account, also "Mjahangir777", who is from Iran. Why would an Iranian be feigning ignorance of the Persian language? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That does seem like an interesting question, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, look what JamesBWatson found. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, now that is quite clever really, editing a Wikipedia in a language he doesn't understand! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Very kind, thank you :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked sock
Hi Boing! I just saw that you blocked a sock who was creating nonsense in the caste realm. May I know who he is a sock of? I faced trouble previously from an account called NagarjunaSarma who was posting similar nonsensical stuff and was also blocked as a sock. You can find more about that account on my talk. I suspect this account is a sock of that one. Is there anyway to confirm that. Cheers Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Start at the sock's user page at User:Vivek987270, click through to the master at User:ForeverKnowledgeSeeker, and then via the "confirmed sockpuppets" link you'll see... User:NagarjunaSarma. You got it spot on! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thank you very much. The next time we see another account doing similar nonsense, we know what to do. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Hi Boing, the sock seems to be back with a new name. These diffs should be enough evidence. [] and []. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to your last comment
I just got on today for the first time and they've already advanced it a stage so it seems everything is moot anyway, but I wanted to point this out somewhere. I'm confident if people actually looked at the big picture rather than looking at a few diffs that show the very worst, they'd feel differently, but no one has time to look at the big picture, I suppose. I've made mistakes and I regret them, but the truth is that I've been an editor and an admin for quite a long time and complaints have been few and far between. I have never gone on wiki-breaks and have edited continually since becoming an administrator, and yet if you search my name on the noticeboards, you'll find very few complaints over the years. It sounds like people want me off the project and somehow feel that I cause a lot of damage, but I really don't think that's the case. I've been one of the most active admins at RfPP over the last five years, for example, and I can only recall one case where someone complained about something I did. I closed hundreds of AfDs and never got a complaint. Same for AIV. I say I'm sorry and I'm confident I can avoid such errors in the future by being more mindful of my role, but from what I've read, no one is interested in hearing it. Enigmamsg 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it feels like it (and a pile on at ANI can feel like a witch hunt), but I promise you I am not trying to get you off the project - and I'm sure Oshwah and the others aren't either. Saying sorry and that you are confident you can avoid such errors in the future is a good start. But the thing is, you haven't actually done that at the ArbCom case as far as I can see. I've just re-read your statement, and there's no apology I can see and nothing about avoiding similar errors in future. You need to explicitly say that at the case - I'm not sure where now that the case has been accepted, but maybe start a section at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence? (I'm sure one of the Arbs or clerks can tell you if there's a more appropriate page). ArbCom will also be looking for you to actually explain how each of your aberrations happened. Take the one where you blocked someone you were in a content dispute with (sorry to harp on about that one, but it's the one I was personally involved in and it is a biggie). That is an absolute no-no, and the only (very few) times I've ever seen another admin do that and not immediately respond with sincere apology has had them hauled off to ArbCom right way, even when it's been their only transgression. In fact, I thought someone would probably refer that episode to ArbCom or to ANI, and I intended to do myself if you did not respond and explain yourself - but for some reason I didn't get round to it. Anyway, just saying "it was a year ago", which is about all you've said about it so far, is not good enough. You need to address it properly, explain what you were thinking at the time, and why you did it. Did you maybe not know you're not allowed to use the admin tools in content disputes? I'd be very surprised to hear that, but "OK, he knows now" is concrete progress. And a 1-year block for a 10-year-old comment? You say you thought that editor had a history of similar things (though even then a 1-year block would be strange, as we usually try escalating shorter blocks, and then indefinite if they don't work). But if you had actually checked to see if that was the case then surely you would have seen how long ago it was? Do you know what it looks like to me? It looks like a knee-jerk retaliation against someone who had attacked you in the past, done when you were in a bad mood for some reason and not in proper control of yourself. (I might be way off the mark there, but when you don't explain yourself properly, people will imagine all kinds of scenarios.) Speaking more generally, as I said in my comment, you seem to work just fine for long periods and then for some reason you go off the rails and do something really silly. Is there any particular reason that happens? Is it just anger? If there is a reason, is there some specific assurance you can give that would convince ArbCom that you can fully control your actions in the future? That's what this is all about - it's about accounting for your actions (per WP:ADMINACCT). If you fail to account for your actions you can lose your admin rights, even on a first report. But if you honestly and openly account for each of those poor actions (I'd suggest the WP:INVOLVED one that I dealt with, the recent 10-year-old one, and the insults when blocking people are the big three), then I could easily see no more than an ArbCom admonishment and your being able to continue as admin (which I would support). The fact that this is your first referral to ArbCom or anywhere similar will count in your favour - but only, I think, if you approach it the way I'm suggesting here. Anyway, I've written far more than I intended to, but it's only aimed at trying to help you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks Enigma<i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that I am genuinely confused by the case and the procedures. Based on the message I got, I thought the 'preliminary' phase was closed and I could not add anything to it. The instructions were then to submit any evidence to the evidence page and then once that phase ended, it would move to another phase (where I assumed I would then be given the opportunity to respond or address people). I don't know what evidence I could add to that page so I didn't edit it. I have not added anything anywhere the last few days because I didn't want to mess with the arbitration pages since the ones I saw have warnings about making any comments out of process. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 21:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pretty arcane process, but I've made a request for some specific instructions at the Workshop page. I'm off to bed now, unfortunately, but I'll follow up tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
hmmmmm, I am waiting, shall I wait more or .....probably wait more?

 QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * I shall be dealing with all outstanding goats this weekend :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * oo-er! --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

=May 2019=

I'll never understand the UTRS way of communication
Hi, Boing!, nice goat. About Podar Education, see. Has the user's unblock request been declined, and if so, has anybody told him/her? Bishonen &#124; talk 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
 * If you click through the link in that message to https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=24759 (saying OK to a couple of dialog boxes on the way) you'll see I sent them a canned message telling them to use their talk page to request unblock. The message will have gone to the email address they used to contact UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't get in, I'm no longer a member of UTRS. (I left, as I can't stand nor handle the interface, and I don't want to rejoin.) But that's OK, I'm fine with the information you give above. (Pats the goat.) Bishonen &#124; talk 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Hmm, there's no special membership any more, and any admin should be able to log in to UTRS now that logins have been unified (using something called "OAUTH", I'm told). I've never specifically joined - I just click the "English Wikipedia" link and then "Allow" (not "OK", sorry) and I'm in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know it had changed, sorry. It worked! But I only got part of your message to the user, namely "As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your ..." With the dots. I can figure the rest, but just for future reference, is there a way I can read the whole message you sent him? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Yep, click the "Logs for this request" link above the messages window. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I don't seem to have any intuition whatever for these things. But now I've squirreled away this thread in my vast "instead of intuition" compendium. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
 * May your compendium burgeon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with ye?
recently created. Fan club, or a testament to a cultural icon :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just another troll/sock, like User:Hey! said Zebedee. I've blocked. Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
Is leaving template on user page all it takes to be permitted to use multiple accounts? Is this sock puppetry? --49.195.42.215 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been told where to look by somebody else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Usernames
Is there a new policy, or perhaps one I've missed, that names of albums are now disallowed user names? If I named myself "American Beauty" would I be blocked if I edited Grateful Dead album articles? Seems a stretch, but maybe I'm missing a policy nuance. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (talk page passersby with relevance in subject) Apologies for instrusion, and I don't have any context (I assume there's context here) but I've edited articles tangentially related to Bowie, and never had any issues with my username. If there is a policy on that type of thing I'm not aware of it.  -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  21:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Somebody has too much time on their hands...
 Don't know what they're up to but I thought an admin should be made aware of it. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI socks
Hi, regarding your block of User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261 as a sock of User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI, could you look at WP:AN? This AN was filed against me and another editor by a dynamic IP user, who is apparently also the one you just blocked, and I'd be interested if you think all the IPs involved are also DbivansMCMLXXXVI. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have little doubt of it. I've added a comment at the AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely block User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI
Right now, DbivansMCMLXXXVI is blocked for one month. Now that he is banned by consensus, can you up that to an indef? Thanks. Rockstone  talk to me!   19:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll deal with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Polemics?
Removed - if you want to kick chunks out of each other, please do it elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Inherent notability
Hi, I've been fixing problems relating to the articles listed at List of villages in Mawal taluka. Among the problems was that the list stated there were 181 villages but the 2011 census records 187. Some of the 187 were uninhabited at that time and the census shows them as such.

I've just created Nandgaon, Mawal but, being uninhabited, it may fall foul of the inherent notability deemed to apply to populated places. I'm guessing that at some point it must have been inhabited, otherwise it would not be considered a village. Any thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for the revert) Haven't got a clue, to be honest, it's not an area of notability that I've ever really looked at. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No problemo. I will take it to the noticeboard - this could end up being a rare case of one of my articles being deleted but, alas, I hit "publish" before realising the potential problem. The uninhabited places could always be shown in the main list. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Puppy for you!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">InvalidOS has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Unfortunately, this puppy is a WikiPuppy using his userpage as a web host, and for advertising his Twitter page. But, with all of the U5 and G11 deletions you've performed, I'm sure you can get him to stop. Invalid OS (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

P:RIGHT
Hey Boing!

I see you just deleted that page. Could you restore it for me and redirect it to Portal:Conservatism? It probably should never have been changed from that original target without discussion.

Regards, – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't see any need to restore it first - feel free to recreate it and point it somewhere suitable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, as there was a talk page too, I think it is indeed better to restore it. I've restored and redirected it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Streaming river
Hi Boing, My Page Ooty flower show was deleted by you on the 22nd of may reason dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page,I was not notified in my talk page about the exact reason as to why the page was deleted,I did not find any information about this topic in any of Wikipedia sister page as directed in the page. Kindly let me know if this page could be restored. Regards (Streamingriver (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * The original article was moved to Ooty Flower Show (with different capitalization), leaving Ooty flower show as a redirect. Ooty Flower Show was later deleted by User:Fram, with the reason "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". All I did was subsequently delete the redirect at Ooty flower show which was by then redirecting to a non-existent page. To query the deletion of the article itself, Ooty Flower Show, you will need to contact User:Fram. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup - 9 June 2019
This is an invite to/reminder of the Manchester Meetup on 9 June 2019. Starting at about 1pm on Sunday 9 June in the Sir Ralph Abercombie, 35 Bootle Street, Manchester. Full details are on the Meta page at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. It would be useful if you could say whether you're likely to be coming so we have a rough idea of how many to people expect and how large a table to reserve. Thanks, and hope to see you there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have throwaway email address?
Like protonmail or whatever; since I want to discuss an ongoing sensitive wiki-related matter with you. 79.141.166.57 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't. If you do not wish to register an account with an email address to use the "Email this user" facility, I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee using . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, however to be precise it was all about a user which you've blocked recently and whose bad behavioral conduct I've reported to WMF earlier this month, which in turn had gotten response of. 79.141.166.57 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, sorry I can't help further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright what about IRC?79.141.166.57 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't use it. I only do communication via on-wiki channels - either on talk pages or via the Wikipedia email facility. As I say, if it's too sensitive to discuss on-wiki, the Arbitration Committee are the people to approach - and if they need any input from me, I'm sure they'll ask. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

=June 2019=

I submitted a report against your personal attacks.
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your personal attacks against me. The thread is User:Boing! said Zebedee is making personal attacks against me.. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like this removed? Invalid OS (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update - the filer of the report has been blocked. Cheers B! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this why my watchlist is all red this morning? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 04:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, it seems I slept through the fun. Thanks everyone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A star
Just a note to say I hope we work on the project together. The disagreements I have had with another editor do not reflect well upon myself or the other editor. But I read your comments and I do not fault you for your opinions of the matters. All my best
 * Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Am I being particularly stupid?
Thoughts on this would be welcome, if you or any watchers here have time/inclination. I am starting to doubt my sanity. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Two more
and. I doubt they'd be used, but it's likely best to ensure it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Donairpizza9999‎
Please just revoke talk page permissions. It's an obvious sock. That account only exists to promote one subject and doth protest too loudly methinks. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the latest claims do make it seem like obvious socking to me, but I'd rather leave it to another admin for a second look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User page
I noticed when you changed my username globally it says my user page doesn't exist. Any idea why?Blaugranaboy (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's presumably because you didn't make one - there was no User:Fadmuckery page, and I can see no deleted version. If you want to make a user page, click on User:Blaugranaboy and start typing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the support during the time that I was blocked. Much Appreciated! Jezzy-lam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to see you back! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania
2020 in BKK it is! I'm looking forward to that :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, now that *is* interesting! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, saying that, it's very unlikely I'd attend. I didn't even bother going to the one in London (when I was in England), because the kind of things they talk about at Wikimania aren't really things that interest me enough to pay for. Others might be keen to play their part in shaping the movement at such levels, but not me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding the bloat
Not wanting to add to the endless tl;dr on that other page, but wanted to answer your question And your expertise in criminal psychology is...? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) My job, for one thing. Lots of people on wiki know I'm a lawyer in real life. Not going to post my resume on-wiki, just a userbox, but yeah, I have dealt with people who harm others and yet won't take responsibility for their actions. We can criticize how WMF handled the situation, but Fram should have been sanctioned by the community a long time ago, IMHO. Rob's statements pretty much sum up how things got to the place they are. Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "My job, for one thing" - Ha, OK, excellent response :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to have clarified matters... ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Read?
Did you know ... that during World War II, Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke safeguarded the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times? - This project is meant for the readers. While you wait, perhaps read about this woman, who lost her first husband in Wold War I, and her second to the Nazis, and looks at us as if to say is it really that important you have to deal with? - Enjoy your break, - I'll be off to travel. Normally I put my blue sign ("not here today") up, but the colour doesn't go well with her image on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope you come back
I understand why you've decided to take a wikibreak, and consider myself one of the walking wounded. FWIW, I've decided that since I do the most good (IMO) as a copyeditor I'll continue doing that; however, the WMF can obviously live without me as an admin. I've always considered you a voice of sanity here, and hope you return. When the backlogs get ugly and the 'pedia (inevitably) deteriorates, even the WMF will realize what it's done. Have fun in the meantime and all the best,  Mini  apolis  22:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I want to make it clear that my break is not a protest against the WMF, it's simply because I'm so saddened by the way the whole thing has blown up (with nastiness, bad faith, and uninformed accusations from all sides). I've actually had quite a nice week so far, and with the weather we have now, I'm looking forward to a sunny Wikipedia-free weekend too. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin resignation statement
I volunteered to serve as an administrator on the English Wikipedia in 2011, in the capacity of serving the English Wikipedia Community and answerable to the English Wikipedia Community (via direct interaction through the feedback of my peers, and via the judgment of the Community-elected Arbitration Committee should that be necessary). Even though I have largely kept away from the most controversial issues, it has still been an occasionally stressful role - but I have always felt supported by the confidence I have had in the English Wikipedia Community who elected me to the position of adminstrator, and in the Arbitration Committee as the Community's elected authority. Things, however, have changed significantly since the Wikimedia Foundation's ban on adminstrator Fram at the behest of the Trust & Safety team. I accept that as a Community (including through our representatives on the Arbitration Committee) we have been poor at managing civility and harassment, and I've held back on any personal action in this case so far in the hope that something better might emerge - and that we might get some more clarity on the ban of Fram and on its consequences. I had hoped I could support a new way forward, but that would need the buy-in of the Community and of the Arbitration Committee (and since the Fram ban plenty of people have tried their best to suggest some sort of compromise and some sort of improved approach) together with some willingness on the part of T&S to consider a joint approach. Unfortunately, the only responses we have received from T&S team leader Jan Eissfeldt to date (June 22), have reiterated his position that he is undeniably right, that he has no accountability to the Community that he is supposed to be serving, and that his judgments (and those of his team) are to be considered infallible and cannot be appealed. Had there been clear recent harassment by Fram, I think more people would have been on board with the ban decision. But whatever Fram might have done seems to be stretching the definition of "harassment", and the denial of any form of appeal by Fram is in direct contradiction to any evidence so far presented, and to the ideals of openness and accountability that we have spent such a long time trying to achieve. I want to make clear that I do accept that the WMF can (and should) issue bans from time to time, and I strongly support every ban that they have implemented so far (at least in as much as I understand the reasons - which, in the most part, I do). In fact, I'll go so far as to thank them for taking on the burden of things like legal issues, child protection, and cross-wiki abuse. But the extension of that reach into everyday English Wikipedia conduct issues, without prior consultation, without any proper discussion, and implementing a minimum sanction of a one-year ban with no course of appeal, is far removed from the ideals of openness and transparency upon which our (imperfect) Community is built, and to me it marks a chilling and demoralizing change in the power structure under which we work. If I were to remain as an administrator, I would in effect ultimately be serving Jan and his team, under undisclosed new rules and under threat of unappealable sanctions should I (or those I interact with) violate those undisclosed rules, rather than serving the Wikipedia Community under its imperfect but transparent and accountable rules. That is not what I signed up for, and I am not willing to serve Jan and the T&S team under such a regime, and so I reluctantly conclude that I must resign as an administrator. I thank the Community for affording me the privilege of serving you while I could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish I could express myself that well!- gadfium 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that we are loosing the best over this. Sad but full of sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that statement of principle. I hope that, sometime in the not too distant fuuture, circumstances will change sufficiently to allow you to take up the bit again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Another good admin (no, it's not an oxymoron) bites the dust. I hope for better days in the future, because right now (as elsewhere, dammit) the inmates are running the asylum. Take care and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am truly, terribly sorry that it's come to this. Hope to see you mopping once again in the (hopefully) near future. GABgab 00:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an arena where "some sort of compromise" occurs constantly. We mere Users are expected to compromise at every turn for the good of Wikipedia and the benefit of the community of editors. It is sad when those in position of power (Jan and his team) turn their backs on something so basic. Sadly, other Admins have followed your lead. Thanks for your years of work on our behalf. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   18:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to see this, but I cannot say I don't understand you. You have been one of the real "work−horses" here, I have seen you clean up so much muck, I will miss your admin work, Huldra (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you give up your bit, wholly agree with your statement here. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 08:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. has made less than 3,200 edits on EN-wiki and last edited in April 2014. His other Wikipedia participation is on DE-wiki, where he has made less than 15,000 edits and last edited in February 2015: . -- Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still willing to help the project grow as a Wikipedia user? I hope you're not retiring... :-(  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, maybe, time will tell. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Bow too, from a lowest-level Wikipedian. FYI, this FRAM affair rings a bell: we had a similar admin anti-CEO revolution in CouchSurfing years ago... Zezen (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sad

 * What said. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC) (and the first two words of my signature are inappropriate)
 * Me too. I hope the WMF has the gumption to fix what they've screwed up, and that at some point you feel able to return here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I too hope that things get fixed and that you will be comfortable returning to your role as an administrator. I wish you well. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Joining the sentiments of the rest. Your work as an editor and admin are invaluable. Best wishes to you on WikiP and even more so off. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Saddening and frustrating, but also perfectly understandable. But thank you, Boing, for taking a principled stand here. Hope very much you will return soon and to a more sensible place. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the sentiments above - I hope this gets resolved soon. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate but understandable. Serving in a regime where you can be excommunicated for behaviour without actually being told how your behaviour is unacceptable is untenable, and quite frankly, absurd. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What & others have posted up-thread. I don't know what to do, but for me these are sad days indeed around WP. Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also expressing my sadness, and my thanks for your service as an admin. It can be a thankless task, I know. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I join the sentiments of the others: Losing you is a great loss to the administration of this website. Best wishes; and, once this is all over, should you wish to have the mop anew, you'll have my vote. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've studiously avoided commenting on any of the current situation. I'm a long time editor, but have been on an extended wikibreak and mostly inactive for the last 6 years. I've seen your handle pop up for the 11 years-ish I have been here and can not remember it ever being for anything negative. You no longer being a sysop is a great loss to the community. Hopefully the OFFICE pulls it's head out soon and fixes all of this. :-(  He  iro 00:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sad to see this, and thanks for all your work. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This damages the encyclopedia – at the very least because we've had more competent admins resign in the past few weeks than we'll be able to recover through RfA in a year –, but I wouldn't want to work for Jan either. Thanks for your tenure as admin. Good luck, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 - I too am sad to see this - You were a great admin but I understand why you resigned and I 100% sympathise with you, Thank you for your service here, I hope at some point in the future you return, Take care and I will you all the best. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you get through Denver, ping me and I'll buy you a real one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (+1) I am sad to see this. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very sad to see this, but I completely understand and sympathize. This is real damage to the project. I hope that the foundation gets it's act together very soon. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  01:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a stand on ethical grounds, to one's own personal cost, is incredibly challenging. You've consistently been an admin I look up to, knowledgeable and well-reasoned, and I'm deeply sorry you had to take this decision. Not many people notice when they are faced with an ethical quandary and fewer still will act on it, but the world would be a far better place if we all did. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These actions only strengthen my admiration for administrators. In the logic of war, those who command must make decisions that sacrifice many of their men to gain strategic ground. In ethics, as opposed to morality, the key decisions always require an act of self-renunciation or self-sacrifice. Your evaluation shifted as our discussion progressed, confirming an empirical temper ready, in a turf war, to reconsider, and, here, make a stand at some considerable personal cost. You, and your fellow admins who have chosen to renounce their powers and the prestige invested in their positions to affirm what is an elementary principle of democracy are a credit to the best ideals of Wikipedia. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just another note of support and thanks for everything you've done here. I clearly remember this note of encouragement from you - just a few words, but 'praise from the praiseworthy' - as one of the main motivators for getting me actively involved with the project. I hope that this mess gets sorted, and that you want to come back when it is. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts
Thanks everyone for their kind comments, and it really would be nice to take up those kind offers of beer should I ever be passing by your various locations - and I do travel quite a bit (and drink quite a lot sometimes), so you never know. I note a few comments deriding the heartfelt decisions that some of us have made as "diva quits" and suggesting we'll take our admin bits back at the drop of a hat. I think those who know me well enough, who have actually read the reasons I gave, and who realize that I spent some significant time deciding on the best course of action, will understand that that is certainly not the case with me. And understanding the feelings that others have expressed, I doubt it is the case with anyone else who has resigned from their admin role. These are genuine and deeply considered decisions people have made, and shame on those who dismiss them so lightly. Whatever might happen in the coming days and weeks, it remains a fact that we are in the midst of a governance change and a shift in the balance of power. There's a new Universal Code of Conduct in the making, and that is something that many have found very difficult to implement - it's something I've worked on professionally in a different context, and it's not easy. And when this code sees the light of day, there will need to be an enforcement mechanism. You can't just introduce a new code and expect it to magic up a new culture all by itself. If T&S are hoping they can say "These are the new rules, you admins enforce them now please", then I think that would be seriously misguided thinking. If T&S intend to enforce the code themselves with any chance of success, I think they'd need to take over enforcement at a similar level to today's admins and today's Arbitration Committee. Their current "one year ban, no explanation, no appeal" strategy would surely become more of a disaster than it already is if they decide to stick with it. Anyway, to my point (I get there eventually). Should I ever consider re-applying to become an administrator, it would not be until the current power shift is complete, until the new rules and enforcement regime are finalized and made clear, and until I see the new enforcement structure working sufficiently well and sufficiently fairly to consider becoming a part of it. And even then, I would not rejoin any rule enforcement regime without the explicit approval of the English Wikipedia Community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Question
When you used to revoke talk page access of various accounts, why do you remove email access as additional block parameter? Simply interested to know. --212.76.254.158 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends entirely on the individual circumstances, and there is no general answer I can give you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

New actions
I think there were no new actions that triggered the one year ban, other than mouthing off to (the "Fuck ArbCom" comment). I suspect AGK or another arbitrator reported that to WMF which is why we have the ban. It's shameful that Fram, after engaging in persistent hounding was let off with merely an IBAN, but then was banned for throwing an F-bomb at the powers that be. It's all wrong. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably right, but whatever the shortcomings of previous investigations, there's no way we should be re-litigating it several years later via ArbCom, and I think the unappealable T&S ban without any further engagement in what he was last warned for was a huge over-reaction to the "Fuck ArbCom" comment. And that, in essence, is what I think has enraged so many people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that the ban is non-appeal-able. When they say that, it's posturing.  If ArbCom investigates this and issues findings, that will put pressure WMF to make good.  Please help me get this done. If Fram is sanctioned, it should be after he has a chance to reply, and the basis should be solid.  Jehochman Talk 15:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there's any way the case could be accepted. The Arbs are already doing their best behind the scenes, and I think we have no realistic option but to go along with KrakatoaKatie's comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of hoping they do accept it, but only if we find out for sure that this is the evidence that T&S used for the ban, meaning 1.5 to 2.5 year old diffs that have already been actioned. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And the two diffs in May 2019. What's curious to me is that very little was done against the actual harassment that occurred, but as soon as Fram started mouthing off to the powers that be (in May 2019), he was quickly shut down.  It seems we are ruled by the principle of deference to power rather than equal justice for all. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been a relatively recent development in WMF giving themselves the power to issue one-year wiki-specific bans, where previously it was just global indef ones. Perhaps having a new tool is part of it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it was Max Weber who said that people who are freshly endowed with new tools will play with them.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint was just banned for mouthing off to the wrong person, a WMF employee. There's a pattern here. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a block, not a ban, and made by the usual Community channels and not by WMF, and there is very much an avenue open to appeal - which is how things should work. Oh, and as the reason for the block, I see "Even if someone’s identity is known, linking to their personal (not work) social media accounts out of a fake concern about impersonation is not okay", which is absolutely right - do you have a problem with that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a Tolkien-fan
But your second sentence here strongly reminded me of a comment a ranger made to Aragorn about their long effort to protect The Shire in one of the LOTR-books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't get that at all - but I did mention the Grey Havens elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A quiet nod and tip of the hat
you're a good guy - thanks for everything. Hope its good in IRL and that things improve on wiki soon. — Ched : ?    —  15:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Things are fine, thanks - and it's nice to see an old friend again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You've resigned your bit several times. I do appreciate that this is sometimes necessary, I've done it myself twice. I hope this will be temporary and that you'll ask for your tools back when the time is right. We can't afford to be without admins like you for too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I will not simply ask for the tools back. I've outlined the conditions under which I might some day re-run via RfA above in the "Thoughts" section. If it should happen, I can't see it being for a long time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)