User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

January 2018

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia day

It's Wikipedia day on Monday, and I wondered if you fancied coming to the Manchester meetup on Sunday 14th?

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Manchester/35

If not, no doubt we'll get a chance sometime soon. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 11:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, I forgot to ping you there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the name of this account

Are you in showbiz? (Email if you'd prefer.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

One that may need longer block

See IP 212.39.89.151 - this edit which caused a Cite error. See the TP, and other instances of vandalism. Atsme📞📧 23:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Seven years of adminship, today.

Wishing Boing! said Zebedee a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Congrats! I just saw you name today when I looked up User Talk:Joefromrandb#Precious. Enjoy your break. I took pics on vacation (9 of the 12 you see when you click on "the desert" on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, Boing! If you are short of things to do you could rename Frabot, unless, of course, it's already been done by the time you read this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

enigmaman

I'd forgotten about the Bloger block. Was waiting to see if E responded. I went by E's talk page to have a word about it. I think he's retired or not well. Has not edited since the Bloger block exploded, and just before that he went by some of the talk pages of the users from back then. (I think of him as a member of the same cohort as me, Pedo, Ballonman.) Anyway, I'm puzzled and perplexed by his actions. Guess three's nothing else for it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was, erm, surprising to say the least. I do hope it was just a one-off aberration, and I hope things are OK with him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Kiranvolety

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Yamla: Got it, thanks, will respond asap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Moffat page

The subject is referenced in multiple articles in papers of record: surely this makes him notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VontEnBateau (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, simply having a person or their company mentioned is not sufficient. We need to see in-depth cover, of the subject specifically, in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people) describes the notability standards for articles about people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Why does anyone "notable" by those standards of already being "famous" enough to be found in multiple, independent, reliable sources need a WP article anyway? And why does the internet, which is the source of 99% of "multiple, independent, reliable sources" or at least "references" to them need Wikipedia period? Kinda like going to the card catalog to make sure a book you happened to spot on a library shelf while looking for another is really there, isn't it? Do you have multiple, independent and reliable sources that will prove you're qualified to unilaterally apply or not apply WP policy as you see fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lukas Cage

I mis-tagged the page. It should have been speedy deletion under A7 not A1. I corrected my mistake. As I am sure you can see the article meets the criteria for removal under A7.Makro (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The request for A7 has been declined, do not put it back again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. Serves you right for being nice. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, yes Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Been amusing to watch, though. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pleased to know I'm helping provide entertainment! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There's something odd, though. Popups showed me that Makro had been editing since October 2006, so I looked at their contributions, Special:Contributions/Makro, and it seems they were doing AfC review in 2014. I just can't square that whole contribution history with the apparent lack of understanding of CSD/AfD/WP:N that the current editor displays. Am I missing something, or does that just not look right to you? --RexxS (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That is odd, yes. I was a bit surprised by how quickly we went from completely clueless to filing a perfectly-formed AFD, but I hadn't looked at the history. Not really sure what to suggest, but it doesn't look right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Pre-2016 AFC was kind of the wild west; anyone who felt like it could mosey on in and "help". We started tightening up the ship around then, kicking out the inactives and the idiots.
That being said, I share the same opinions/concerns. A user with that long a tenure not knowing how CSD works? Arguing this vehemently with other users? It's rather odd. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You all are making this much too hard. The user does know how CSD works, but he doesn't care. He didn't mistakenly tag the article as A1 instead of A7. That would be plausible if he tagged it as db-a1 and made a typo, but he tagged it as db-multiple. This is the same person who put a barnstar on his user page from a user who had never edited. In other words, he's an aggressive, disruptive liar.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Either way they're on my list. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh dear, I don't think I'd want to be on your list. Is that like the list from Don Giovanni?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
hehe, something like that. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Oh! Are we assuming bad faith with an editor that hasn't been blocked in four years over an issue that's already been resolved when we could just as well go do something else instead!? I wanna join! That sounds like fun! GMGtalk 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm forming a harassment squad, want to join? We'll nitpick over every user's minor indiscretions and harass them until they leave Wikipedia. I'll call it the Harasquad. Primefac (talk)
Seriously though guys. Look at the editing history. There's by my count, three CSD nominations between now and December 2014, one of which is an A7 on a draft. Dontcha think it's just more likely they don't know how CSD works? And saying they've been around since 2006 is a little meaningless when you don't consider years long gaps in their editing history, and the fact that they have less edits from 2015-2018 than most of us with nothing better to do have in the past week.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a little suspicious when a few red flags are raised, but gee fizz. Don't attribute to malice what you can easily attribute to inexperience. GMGtalk 15:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
My interest is mainly ascertaining whether or not there are IDHT issues. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I see no basis for assuming good faith with this user. He has long gaps of no editing but he also has over 2,000 edits plus edits at other projects. He may not be competent in certain areas, but the disruption shines through regardless. I don't intend to block him now, but unless he retires again for a period of time, he's likely to be blocked. The basis? There are several to choose from.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between voicing suspicions and outright calling someone a liar. One of the two of these is acceptable. GMGtalk 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess WP police isn't enough basis for assuming good faith even though the "assume good faith" doesn't mention first determining if there's a basis for doing so. Seems like the kind of situation where at the very least a community discussion could occur and a consensus on whether or not good faith should be assumed or not sought. But then again its just a matter of "inviting" the "right" members of the community and letting them create the consensus desired. But at least it would appear to the uninitiated that when WP policy was ignored and no basis for good faith was found the "consensus" was arrived at per WP policy and practice rather than one of the WP Masters of the Universe unilaterally ignoring the many WP policies that should collectively put the "veterans" on their best behavior as examples to all of how to be a professional editor rather than a self-appointed "judge" of all that appears before them on their various "alert systems" for informing the influential and indispensable WP may be at risk of "vandalism" or "policy violations" or some other horrible criminal act. The worst of which is "backtalking" a WP PARENT, of course. I've never seen so many supposed "adults" act like such a bunch of children giving orders and issuing commands and "punishing" other adults or worse ACTUAL children with their WP sermons, warnings, discipline and "power". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NHBuchananWikipedia

Hi Boing, I noticed you just renamed a user to NHBuchananWikipedia - which looks like it's against the username policy per WP:MISLEADNAME? While it's true the old name was also not a good username, surely we shouldn't be preventing someone from using one name but allowing them to use a different which violates the same policy as the first?

[stwalkerster|talk] 23:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks, I'd overlooked that. I've asked them to request a new rename. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_30&oldid=835800216"