User talk:Boing! said Zebedee: Difference between revisions

Archives

2019 - Q2 • Q1 2018 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2017 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2016 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2015 • 2014 2013 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2012 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2011 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2010 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2009 • 2008 • 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

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. Enigma^msg 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enigmaman: 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)[reply]

thanks Enigma^msg 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 21:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Sharkslayer87:. 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)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:. 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)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:. Hi Boing, the sock seems to be back with a new name. These diffs should be enough evidence. [[1]] and [[2]]. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #24807 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

YaoNice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Apr 20, 2019 21:00:43

Message: Hi, I should welcome your thoughts at UTRS, please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

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

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.Just Chilling (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@QueerEcofeminist: I shall be dealing with all outstanding goats this weekend :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oo-er! --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boing!, nice goat. About Podar Education, see [3]. Has the user's unblock request been declined, and if so, has anybody told him/her? Bishonen | talk 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | talk 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | talk 13:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, click the "Logs for this request" link above the messages window. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 | talk 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

May your compendium burgeon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! said Zebedee recently created. Fan club, or a testament to a cultural icon  :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Is leaving {{User alternate acct | name}} 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)[reply]

You have been told where to look by somebody else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[4]
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)[reply]

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#Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello, I removed this comment [[5]], it was basically there just to target a user. It has been reverted by someone else who also seems to be involved with that same dispute. The post isn't about building consensus or furthering the Pedia, just airing a grievance. Would you mind looking into it? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]