User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, for example by using the "new section" or "+" tab at the top, or by clicking -> here <-

Username merge

Hi there! Just want to check with you... I know a user who has a unified global account, but has 1 non-English username on si-wiki. Is it technically possible to rename that non-English username on si-wiki, to the globally used English username, so that she has one unified account? Thanks in advance! Rehman 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is that I have no idea! But I'll ask at the global-renamers mailing list and see if I can get an answer for you - watch this space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rehman: Apparently something might be possible in some cases - can you tell me the two accounts so I can pass the information on to the experts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! @User:Sandaru, can you paste in the other (Sinhala) username here please? I cannot find it haha. Best regards, Rehman 15:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's සඳරූ. It's the same name for Sandaru in sinhala. Sandaru (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I see both accounts have made edits on en.wiki and wikidata, so my guess is it won't be possible to merge them - but I've passed on the details to the experts, and I'll let you know what they say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! :) Rehman 12:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Prevent archive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion on "involved"

I appreciate your input at WP:AN on my questions about "involved". Thank you. I'd like to bend your ear for a moment if I may. You mention that reversion of clear policy violations should be fine to avoid INVOLVED issues, but what about clear-cut community guideline violations or POV issues? I find myself interacting in articles (Indian soap operas, for instance) where users seem to be going out of their way to deviate from community norms. Some examples:

1. There were a bunch of Indian soap opera articles where people kept silently changing the season numbering from 1 to 01 or 2 to 02, in contravention of MOS:NUM.
2. Users were misusing the |followed_by= parameter of the television Infobox to indicate the name of the series that replaced an 8pm series in the 8pm time slot, when the parameter is intended to indicate the name of a series that followed another in a franchise (Star Trek: Voyager followed_by Star Trek: Enterprise)
3. Users keep adding "Former cast" sections to television cast listings, which contravenes WP:TVCAST. (The guideline wants cast organized per how they were introduced in the series, with new members being added to the bottom of the list, and adding cast to a "former" section eliminates any clue about whether or not the cast member/character was part of the Main or Recurring cast.)
4. Users keep deleting prose content from cast lists, again in contravention of WP:TVCAST. An editor might add some descriptive text: "John Doe as Ralph Jones - Ralph, a thief, is Bradley's cousin" Then someone (typically a silent IP) will come by and strip away the information Ralph, a thief...
5. This guy describing a film as a "huge success".

These are but a few examples. I started adding Indian entertainment articles to my watchlist because I thought it was an area I could oversee with minimal involved-ment. I'm not Indian, I don't watch or care about the TV shows or movies that I edit. I'm at these articles solely because they need babysitting so that they adhere to basic community guidelines. It's gets frustrating when I find myself dealing with silent editors who appear to be completely ignorant about, and apathetic to, what a basic TV article should look like. They're seemingly going out of their way to muck them up. I've tried posting detailed explanations on talk pages, educating individual editors, but to little avail. An editor once explained to me that INVOLVED becomes an issue when dealing with disputes over content, but as far as I can tell, everything is a dispute over content. The guy calling a film a "huge success" is a clear-cut violation of NPOV, but it's also a content issue. The removal of prose from a cast list is a content issue, but it's also indistinguishable from vandalism. Maybe there is more nuance to INVOLVED where I'm looking for black-and-white. If I find an Indian TV article and clean it up so that it adheres to basic TV article standards, does that make me involved? Should I not improve the article? Can one make improvements to an article and remain uninvolved? I've only been adminning for a little over a year, so I want to be sure I'm doing things properly. Anyhow, your thoughts are appreciated and I know I'm asking a lot of you. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thought-provoking stuff! I need to give it some thought, but I'll definitely come back to you about it - I've had Involved accusations regarding Indian topics myself before now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thought-provoking indeed, but to me, Cyphoidbomb, the most interesting thing about this is your statement that you've only been adminning for a little over a year. It feels to me as though you've been an admin for far longer than that.

As with most Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no clear answer to what is involved and what isn't. I tend to work on the assumption that dealing with anything which almost anyone with a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia would regard as inappropriate editing, rather than issues which are matters of opinion, does not make one involved, which tends to include obvious and unambiguous breaches of policies or guidelines. Very occasionally I do hold back from making edits to a page because I am anticipating that I may be going to take admin action, but that is rare. In most cases a better approach, I think, is to go ahead with doing what I think needs doing, and if I then have any doubt about whether my actions make me involved, I ask another administrator to assess the case. (I seem to remember that Boing!... has once or twice been that other administrator, but I don't remember any specific example, so I may be wrong.) I think I would regard describing something in an article as "a huge success" as a clear violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and so I would not regard reverting that as making one involved. Issues about the manual of style, however, to me seem more questionable, because they are essentially just preferences in areas where there is room for different views, and there are many exceptions which are generally accepted, so I would be more inclined to think that MOS-related edits might make one "involved". I would not tend to regard you as involved just because you had made one or two trivial changes to comply with the manual of style, but if you had done substantial clean up then I might. However, if in doubt, hold back (either from editing or from adminning) to avoid problems. You probably don't want to become one of those admins who are torn into little pieces by an angry mob of fanatical "all-admins-are-evil" people at AIV, nor even one of the tiny number of admins that have been blocked by so-called "JamesBWatson" for abuse of admin powers. (As far as I remember, the "tiny number" is two, and to stop you from losing a lot of sleep as you worry yourself sick that you may become number three, I should perhaps emphasise that the two that I remember were both hundreds of miles over the line between uninvolved and involved, they were not in the debatable areas that you are talking about. Indeed, the very fact that you have asked this question indicates that you care, whereas the victims of my vicious attacks were admins who don't care, so long as what they do serves their purpose.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I've now seen the thread at ANI that led to your post above. I suppose it would have made sense to have read that before posting here. I would say that reverting someone's "refactoring, plagiarism" would be dealing with matters which are clearly unacceptable, and so I would not regard that as preventing admin action. However, when it comes to someone calling you biased, in 99% of cases it would be safer to get another admin to deal with it. Even if the accusation is blatantly unfounded, the fact that you are the subject of the accusation really makes you involved. Even there, though, I am not sure there might not be cases where the accusation was so obviously part of trolling or other totally stupid editing that I might make an exception. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: As always, I appreciate your input, thank you. I'll have to noodle this some more. Yes, I do care about the issue, as you've noticed...I'm just trying to figure out the nuances. Most of what we do as admins is babysitting. The Indian TV/film article world is so full of marketing sock rings and whatnot... Nobody ever speaks, and some of the changes are just astoundingly moronic. Augh, it's really irritating... Anyway, thanks for your opinions! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New SPI?

Have you seen the discussions about 173.238.79.44 (talk · contribs) and ItaloCelt84 (talk · contribs)? See User talk:Ivanvector. A lot of similarities with Veritas2016 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 11:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiven2240

Hi Boing!. Just a heads-up as I forgot to ping you when I posted this to ANI. Despite your warning, Tiven2240 has unfortunately not stopped using Page Curation: this is from a few hours ago, and they have been following it up with advice to the page creator as well. Given their competence issues with their own draft article (as seen on their user talk page) it does not seem like the best idea, really. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It seems Tiven2240 also issued a BLP Prod for an article that actually did have a source, and posted a warning about it on the creator's talk page. I've tried to limit the damage by removing the notification and giving the new user a welcome template instead, and I have issued a 48 hour block for Tiven2240. Please let me know if you see them doing more NPP once the block is over (even if they actually get it right) and I will escalate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tu maza Jeev

Heya I am back with a question about a draft I had created Here I have been sending request to accept it but then too it isn't from a long time . There are comments from members and I have solved all of their doubts but then too they don't send it to main space if u think it's proper than u move it to the required place. Orelse explain me what to do next as I feel u expert in such matter's --Tiven gonsalves 07:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

@Tiven2240: As it says in the "Review Waiting" box, "This may take 2–3 weeks", so please be patient and wait for it to be reviewed again - the reviewer will move it to main space if they're satisfied that you have resolved the outstanding issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I should add that "Tu Maza Jeev has a wide of whole working hard about its promotion as it is the first of its kind" is incomprehensible - I really can't understand what you are trying to say. If you do not rewrite that sentence so it can be understood, the next review is also very likely to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, do not move your own drafts to main space again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

IP at Talk:Race (human categorization)

Any IP editing race articles whose IP address is Birkbeck College is the racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

change of the content regarding

Hi,

I have changed some content on the Pasi Caste. It seems that the earlier version was not accurate discription of the Caste. The Pasi Caste is uniformly spread to many parts of the country . It has never reared pigs . So kindly change the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun4380 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policies on sourcing at WP:RS - we go on what reliable sources say, not on what you personally assert without sources. And the source you removed (Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation. Routledge. pp. 8, 23. ISBN 978-1-31755-952-8) clearly says "They are followed by the Pasi community; a caste of pig-rearers". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Revoke TPA?

Wow, just wow.... [1] Mike1901 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, done, thanks. This is a troll who's been doing this kind of thing recently, and WP:RBI seems to be the best way to deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Boing! said Zebedee. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

IP back, have a new target

They have chosen a new target, it's the same IP user again. I've watched their edits today to make sure, You can see their tell tale sign of accusing another user of Vandalism to get an edit war started [here], this started earlier today. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And [here] is the edit warring, false accusing, IP we all know. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah has got it while I was sleeping ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

Hi, I noticed that you blocked Simon Mugava (talk · contribs) for violating his topic ban, but I noticed that 86.156.47.203 (talk · contribs) later made changes to the Uebert Angel page that are suspiciously similar to Simon Mugava (talk · contribs)'s edits, such as the promotional tone, insisting on misquoting the BBC as calling Angel "young and charismatic" etc.. As a dumb novice editor, I couldn't digest WP:SI so I hope you can look into this instead. Thank you! CherylHew (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I saw and reverted that one. I don't think a sock investigation would be much help right now, as checkusers won't be able to tie an IP to a registered user - and the IP geolocates to London, and I'm reasonably confident that Simon Mugava is himself not in London. For now, I think just keeping and eye on it and reverting (and blocking if necessary) is the way to go - we can always protect the article if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Random Question

So, I notice that most of the questions on this chat page are mainly in a professional manner concerning the upkeep of Wikipedia. Since I am a fairly new user and am unfamiliar with the exact specifications of what talk pages can be used for, I figure I'll just ask my question anyway and receive the proper discipline. This is totally random, but what does your username come from? The name Zebedee is oddly familiar... QuestionWhy

Zebedee [...] appeared, usually summoned by Florence, with a loud "boing" sound, and he usually closed the show with the phrase "Time for bed" - The Magic Roundabout. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Favorite kids show I presume? Creative name for sure, caught my attention QuestionWhy (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that

That was a good block, as well as your later action.

Hopefully he calms down a bit before coming back. I was going to keep trying to explain to him that if he wants admin sanctions against Cagwinn the burden is on him to prove that Cagwinn actually insulted, threatened and so on, but now that talk page access is removed it would be inappropriate for me to keep posting there, and probably wouldn't do his mood any good.

I honestly don't mind the swearing or SHOUTing so much, so if it had only (or primarily) been aimed at me I would have asked you not to remove talk page access so I could keep trying to convince him how he could avoid longer blocks, but that's not really for me to decide.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an attempt to help him stop digging, but he's gone on to send me abusive emails and so I've really had no option but to escalate the sanctions - you can see on his talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

YGM (Related to the above) Mike1901 (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I feel a significant measure of responsibility for this. Thanks for taking over to try and put a stop to it. Sorry it didn't quite work out. If need be I am happy to issue an apology to UtherPendrogn and try to amend the situation with them. Otherwise, carry on with the good work. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think everyone has tried their best to defuse things, and I don't think you did anything wrong. From his actions since the block, I really don't see any way back for him now, sadly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IP user not listening

I have tried explaining to this IP that they can't remove content without a source. They have edit warred over it and violated 3RR. I have explained it on the article talk page and their own after issuing the 3RR warning. They are not getting that without a source they can't just remove content like they are doing at here, I have removed myself from the situation as it's like arguing with a wall. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have proven on the talk page of the article that HIS edits are out of line. See for yourself. He refuses to provide a link. I have provided two showing my edit is the correct one. 101.182.161.253 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)