User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

July 2017

You want to know why I'm stressed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MelanieN#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser_talk:Seraphim_System.23Reverts_under_DS

THIS is why I'm stressed. Because if I try to report something, no matter what I do - no matter how hard I try to follow wikipedia's crappy and contradictory policies and the instructions given by people like MelanieN - I get attacked for it while the abusers who are just following me page to page get off scot fucking free. I took your advice to reconsider quitting and look what it's gotten me: more WP:WIKIHOUNDING and miscellaneous harassment, including getting attacked for even trying to get stuff written up the right way. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it's not going well. I'm afraid I don't have the time to investigate this current problem, as I'm busy this evening and I'll be away all day tomorrow - but I've always found MelanieN to be fair. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lesson learned. MelanieN is looking for an excuse to attack me, you asked me to stay but you're "too busy" to look. It's clear I won't get fair treatment from anyone. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see your retirement, but after a quick look (admittedly not in depth, because I do have a life of my own to lead and I am genuinely busy with personal things), I really don't see MelanieN attacking you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

To review or not to review - that is the question

Relax for 15 minutes and read this. I trust your judgement implicitly so if you think I'm off my rocker, don't be afraid to say so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Just spotted this in my archive, and I knew I'd forgotten something here - busy weekend, so I'll look soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321

Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs) was unblocked on the condition they refrain from editing Battle of Ia Drang completely. They agreed to that and were unblocked. Since being unblocked, the only edits they've made have been to Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. It's unclear to me if this violates the terms of their unblock. Given that it's unclear to me, I politely suggest (and obviously, you are free to ignore my suggestion) that you warn rather than reblock them, if they are indeed prohibited from the talk page, too. Note that I am a native English speaker; I suspect Tnguyen4321 is not. --Yamla (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is I am prohibited to edit the article page not the talk page. Let me know if I misunderstood.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla and Tnguyen4321: My intention was that Tnguyen4321 should keep away from the article completely, including the talk page, and don't discuss it anywhere - and go find something else to do that is unconnected with that subject. But I worded it badly, and because of that I don't think any sanction or warning is justified at this point. Tnguyen4321, I think the best option would be for you to voluntarily keep away from the subject of that battle completely, on all pages, with a reinstatement of the block if you violate your agreement. If you don't accept that, the alternative would be to seek a community ban, so I think it would look better for you if you did accept it voluntarily. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Although I think it's kind of harsh, I have no problem of accepting it. That said, I have to add that I am under the impression that you think my participation and contribution to the subject cause more harm than good to Wikipedia to impose such a drastic restriction which goes beyond @Only:'s mention of incidents of edit warring at any article.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Who's counting eh  ;)

-I made it the sixth, as it goes. Not important though. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

One block log entry is the extension of an existing block from one to two weeks, which I considered just one block - perhaps that's the difference? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I think you're probably right- cheers! -still, that's why you're on the salary you are :) — fortunavelut luna 11:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting in for at least a 50% raise this year! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean you're considering an RFB, Boing? I'd support you... Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

...man, that would blow the wages bill!

Nah, there's nothing crats do that I'd want to do - but thanks for the thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ogando/Ground

Hello. Not having the drafts creation protected might be a good thing, since they're very good honeypots, and how I spotted the latest couple of attempts to recreate the articles (by seeing them pop up in my watchlist...). Cheers - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...sounds like a honeytrap to me, Boing  ;) — fortunavelut luna 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I did think of that, and I'm always torn - whether to try maximum denial in the hope they'll go away, or just keep catching them? As you're happy watching the drafts, I've unprotected. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

About that Jeff Dujon business

Hi, this is just in case you didn't see my reply on my own talk page (Wikipedia really needs a talk reply notification system)

"the only difference is you tried to hide it among some other additions."

• Cool. So at least you now admit that I did make legitimate contributions to the page instead of "unconstructive...vandalism"? (and I saw you kept them while removing the "autograph nonsense".) And regarding the "autograph nonsense": no I did not happen to make exactly the same addition purely by coincidence, because I copied and pasted it from a previous edit I saw while scanning through history. Because:

1. I know it's true;
2. Brady Haran is a well-known person, so
3. it's an interesting trivia;
4. I was not aware of the existence of a bloody wiki editing war (seriously look at that page who would even bother having an editing war there? About an autograph?)

And no I am not a part of some "organized disruption". All the examples you gave were made by clearly puppet accounts with almost no previous contributions, while I have a list of wikipedia contributions going back years. Seriously, use your head; if I want to start socking, I make fake accounts, I don't use my own actual account. And yeah I'm pissed because I got banned indefinitely with pretty much no explanation or warning.The 51st Division (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's OK, I have your talk page watched. And there actually is a notification system (though an automatic one would indeed be nice) - just add {{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}} at the time you sign your comment and I'll get a notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus, I've had my run-ins with Wikipedia admins, but you're the fastest replying one I've ever seen.(talk) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.34.50.17 (talk)

Your Name

Where exactly did your name come from? I'm quite curious to know. Dinah In Wonderland 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Zebedee had a red face and large upturned moustache, was dressed in a yellow jacket ... In most episodes he 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) 16:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh cool! I really like it. Dinah In Wonderland 16:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't block me for outing ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My life is dogged by the paparazzi! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Good for you

I admire your willingness to reconsider. [1] Various relevant pages happened to be on my watchlist, and the way things were unfolding was getting awful close to some of the How-Dare-You-Question-My-Authority crap I've seen too often. EEng 12:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, when I re-examined it I got a hint of that too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfD, as discussed some time ago.

I'm not sure if you will remember this but some months ago you asked to be notified if I did this. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, a vague memory - I'll watch it, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Uebert Angel

Hello Boing! It seems that semi-protection is unfortunately not enough. These meat or sock puppets appear to create a bunch of accounts, sometimes months in advance, waiting until they're autoconfirmed to finally make the same edits here again... Evidence of puppetry being that edits on other articles are few, when editing here it's always to remove the same information, usually with the same source and edit summary... —PaleoNeonate - 16:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

One possible strategy is to leave the article as it is and then block them on sight - I've blocked the most recent two, and might start an SPI to ask a Checkuser to look for sleepers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I've added a new SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Mugava. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It didn't go too badly ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

two questions

First, is there a noticeboard for edit-warring IPs? There's one edit warring quite a bit (at least two past 3RR right now) at Religious views of Adolf Hitler.

Second, do you think you could take a look at the behavioral evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere? I'm completely convinced this is the same guy, but the technical evidence isn't enough, it'll take an admin to look at the behavioral stuff and make a call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Both editors were well over 3RR, and so I've blocked them both for 24 hours. Under other circumstances I may have considered protection, but Anmcaff has had a previous edit-warring block and was at at least 5 reverts, while the IP received and removed a warning and then proceeded to revert some more...I've other things to do now, so if you take issue with any of this please feel free to modify things without asking me. Vanamonde (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wasn't aware that Anmcaff had gone over, but I still appreciate the looking out! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Boing, I hate to be a pain in the ass, but could I ask you again to take a look at that SPI? The sock has now turned to filing relatiatory SPIs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm really sorry, but I'm dealing with real-life emergency things right now - and I don't know when I'll have time for Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• No problem, I'll go pester someone else. Good luck and well-wishes with the emergency. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unavailable

I'm unavailable for a little while, so please ask someone else if you need any help - as always, any admin is welcome to revert or modify any admin action of mine according to their own judgment without needing to check with me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope everything is well. Enjoy your break and if you happen to be coming this way, let me knowi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unavailable

I'm unavailable for an indeterminate time, so please ask someone else if you need any help - as always, any admin is welcome to revert or modify any admin action of mine according to their own judgment without needing to check with me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope everything is well. Enjoy your break and if you happen to be coming this way, let me knowi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism has been recreated

Do you see a significant difference between this and the deleted page? Doug Weller talk 17:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your post saying you were away, I've taken it to AfD. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I'm away from my admin account for a couple of weeks too, so I'm not able to see deleted pages. Boing! on Tour (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Turns out it was created by a sock of the same editor who created the first version. I think it's been improved by others, might pass AfD now. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If we get a worthwhile article out of it, I guess that's a success :-) Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if we don't, regularly seeing updates on my watchlist about the creation of coherent catastrophe, has lightened several of my days. MPS1992 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

BKKK

In case you didn't get the mail

• Arr. Nok 12:50 8.8.17
• Dep. Nok 17:00

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks, and just replied - weekend went on longer than expected and only just back online. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "take the high ground and be the first person to stop talking about it". That might be a recipe for the infobox-wars also. ... and nobody came. People tell me that Harry Lauder and Requiem (Duruflé) were battles, - I don't believe it. (Even if so, 2 in a year would be bearable.) The closest thing to a war scene is mentioned in my RfA q. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Thank you for giving advice to propose for deletion instead of Speedy deletion

thank you for removing the speedy deletion request on Aruviyur Nagarathar and suggesting me to propose it for deletion. thank you for your advice. I will try to learn from it and proceed with care in future.

Happy to help - it was just a technical thing about the applicability of A7, that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister ‎

Thanks for cleaning up. I wasn't sure if I should have blanked that myself. Meters (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for your efforts too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with ST or not, there's no call for that. Meters (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I meant the indeffed editor's actions! I agree fully with the "troll" comment. Meters (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - it's late and I'm getting tired here ;-) But I did actually think better of the "bridge" thing after I wrote it, as it was unnecessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

/* undefined */ new section

I appreciate your change in heart, but had your opinion carried the day, I'd be indef'd by a newly minted Admin long ago. I've strickly followed the restrictions and the result is tighter restrictions on me, and a batch of MfDs closed against me today because of continued harassment. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that RfA came very close to presenting a potentially disastrous outcome! I can understand if you're feeling a bit aggrieved at the moment, and I really do think it would be best for you not take further part in that AN discussion right now. And I do honestly think that continuing the 2-way IBAN, at least for now, will benefit you too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you of course, but I feel run over and despised because of all these restrictions. Various editors say an indef is in order, but the responses to a suggested indef are just victim blaming. Think hard, really hard, about how this looks to me. Legacypac (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I do understand. But with this latest episode, I do think the moral high ground has shifted. And I think this is a "last chance" before an indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

With that close placing me on notice, I fully expect to be indef'd in due course with no discussion by some trigger happy admin over some imagined violation. I should just quit Wikipedia now and save the drama. I've requested the close be amended. Will see. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I note Iridescent's modification, and his comments at his and Godsy's talk pages. If you just carry on as you're doing, there's no way you should be at risk of a block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

DynamoDegsy

Just so you know, DynamoDegsy has replied to your comment of 10 August at WP:NOR and also opened another section there - this is the rugby league/FreeBMD stuff. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, you know how to spoil a chap's evening, don't you? ;-) Actually, I see no need for me to reply there, but I'll keep an eye on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, as he's posting links on other biog talk pages, I might add a few words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha! Well, if mine is being spoiled then I see no reason why I shouldn't spread it around a little. I've got doubts about that thread going anywhere, tbh, because the NOR board looks to be very quiet. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't resume his genealogical work, we should be OK - and he certainly won't get a concensus for his notions. But, of course, there's still the huge amount he's already done that will need to be dealt with - do let me know when you've sorted it all out ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You are in an impish mood ;) I thought it best to wait until they came off their block but I wasn't expecting them to go back to their old arguments. This could be messy. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I was talking to User:Dweller by email at the time, who should probably be consulted before that daunting task is taken on. I did wonder if a community discussion to seek wider consensus would be a good move first, and I still think it would be (though I expect it would not be without drama - I can understand someone getting upset if a lot of their work is removed). But after all that, I'm not sure I want to take part in it myself - there have been changes for me here, I'm taking a temporary break from adminiship, and I'm not sure how much enthusiasm I'm going to have for Wikipedia from now on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Alas, Dweller is not around much now either. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

This is actually a community site ban, I've linked the ban on the SPI and the master's user page. The account confirmed that they were a sock. Just in case the history wasn't easy for you to see :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I declined it that way because I couldn't find the ban - I didn't realise it was linked from the sockmaster's page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm the only one who seems to find these socks now (esp since Bbb23 is on vacay), and I get tired of linking them at every sock's page, so I put in the template at the master's page and noted it at the last SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 is sorely missed, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I saw in the logs that you were just resysopped. It's good to see you back, and I hope things are going well for you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded! And now that you're back I have a list of about 200 editors I want you to block, about 2000 IPs that need rangeblocking, 50 RfC's that need closing, 250 edits to revdel, 74 pages to delete... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

I read those edits right after reading this. The amount of personal commentary we allow unrelated to content (or in this case to the appeal) is frustrating. I read the guidelines on "hatting" before I did it but if your revert means I didn't follow them then I apologize. D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's nothing to apologise for. There's really no right and wrong and it's very much open to individual interpretation - and in many cases, hatting parts of discussions like that can make sense. It's just that in this particular case, I can't help thinking that anything that looks like preventing people from saying what they want might not be such a good idea. Just a difference of opinion between us, that's all (and others might well disagree with me). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Socks by admins

Could you please consider asking for a global lock to INeverCry and their sock accounts / IPs? They have been so deceitful that there is no reason to assume that this user can be trusted not to create a new account on another project and edit from there. They know how to game the system, they were a CU on Commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung there has been a previous request which was denied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, that rquest was made 5 weeks ago. In the light of more recent evidence, desysoped on both projects, former CU on Commons, and new idef blocks, perhaps this request should be renewed. This user is particularly egregious and deceitful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That previous decline was on 11 Aug, the same day INeverCry was blocked here. Since then, all I've seen here is that unblock request, and I doubt that would be seen as an escalation of cross-wiki abuse. Personally, I think he should indeed get a global lock, but the indef-able abuse really seems to have been on Commons and they don't seem prepared to lock for just that. Should we get any more socking here, or other abuse, I think that would change things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Boing, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

'Twas deserved, welcome to the evil inner circle. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Because goats are awesome.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Goats are good, yes. I was approached by a fine specimen once in Macau (a genuinely superb looking beast - I could believe it was a show specimen), which seemed to want to share my lunch. I gave it some, which it readily ate, and then it sneezed on me - goat snot is very sticky and very smelly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This story made my day. Thanks for sharing. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad you liked it - I should tell you some of my toilet stories some time :) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Re [2] If the majority choose to ignore (or misinterpret, or twist) policy in their !voting, that must stand then? In that case, who needs uninvolved closers, let alone admin closers? Pretty much anybody can count !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Closers are supposed to evaluate with respect to policy, yes, and I didn't say otherwise. Closers are not allowed to decide whether a community consensus is for an adequate solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The closer's role

I don't really want to argue the point in a public venue, but "the job of a closer is not to evaluate whether a solution is adequate" seems a bit rich from someone who reverted that close because it "does not provide that decision" - ie. you think the solution is inadequate. You seem to argue on the one hand that I should have "discerned" a consensus, either to site ban or to unblock, where in fact I can see none (and the subsequent site-ban discussion I think is showing that I was right about that) because we need a decision that puts the whole thing to rest, and on the other that I should just be summarising the consensus as I see it without considering whether the close adequately protects the project.

I didn't really want to spell this out at AN as I felt it would lead to a whole new can of worms, but it happens that in this particular case, I disagree with you anyway, because any admin closing that discussion is inevitably wearing two hats - one as the closer of the discussion, and another authorised by the arbitration committee to consider discretionary sanctions (since the disruption is within the AP2 topic). It is on that basis that, having concluded that there was neither consensus to unblock nor to site ban, I still felt I had to consider whether the outcome of the discussion adequately protected the project. I thought it did, but clearly some disagree and I'm not going to claim to be Right on that point, only to have my opinion. GoldenRing (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I realise that seems quite hostile and I don't quite mean it like that so please don't take it that way. I would value your thoughts on what I've written, though. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I felt your close was actually faulty for a number of reasons, of which I only explicated one - I also knew others were planning to work on a close. If you were not able to discern a consensus, I thought it better to let someone else try and see if they could - after all, Mrjulesd had previously thought he could discern a consensus but his close was overturned purely because he is not an admin.

That's not at all the same as saying I personally disagree with the community's decison and I did not revert your close because of that - I reverted because I thought a better job of analysing the community decision could be done (and I knew others were putting together a panel to do it). Also, as others have suggested, your close was contradictory - the community does not support unblock, but an admin can unblock if they wish, appears contrary to policy to me.

Finally, on to "the job of a closer is not to evaluate whether a solution is adequate". Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome seems quite clear - the closer's balance of policy-based arguments made in the discussion is what is needed, and not the closer's opinion on whether a consensus-based decision is an adequate resonse to the issue itself. Wikipedia:Supervote provides a good further explanation (it's only an essay, but I think it captures the essence of the policy quite well). Opining on the adequacy of the consensus rather than simply determining the facts of the consensus would be adding the closer's personal preference.

It may be that there's no consensus after all other than for a topic ban, but given the massive time already spent on it I think we should see if those currently working on it can extract anything - the alternative seems to me that we'll be right back at the same position very quickly. But either way, I hope this explains my thoughts better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I know my close seemed contradictory when you take into account the relevant policy, yet that's how I read the consensus and I think the way the discussion has developed since then bears that out. If we're going to abide by that policy in this situation then the only possible outcomes are obtuse - either that a discussion with no consensus to unblock results in an unblock or that a discussion with no consensus to site ban results in a site ban. Doesn't that make this a situation in which we should ignore that particular rule? GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As I say, whether there actually is a consensus (and what it says) is under dispute, and in such cases (especially lengthy and emotive ones), a panel of closers is a common approach (and, I think, a good one). But that panel must not judge the best solution for itself - just evaluate what there is and what there is not a consensus for. If the consensus does not produce an effective solution, it might indeed be that further judgment is needed later, but the consensus closure itself is not the place for that - judging consensus is one of the areas in which I think IAR has no place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, the panel seems a good idea to me and if I'd spotted that there was one forming then I'd have left it alone. I didn't close that discussion as (essentially) "no consensus to site ban and no consensus to unblock" because I thought that's what was best; it was my reading of consensus there. I haven't discussed the interaction with DS above because that factored into my reading of consensus, but because, having formed my view of the consensus, I felt I also had to ask myself, "Should I be using DS to do anything else in this situation?" I thought the answer was "no", so I didn't.
I'd certainly agree that a closer shouldn't IAR to impose a close contrary to consensus; I meant that the point of policy is one which should in this case be ignored. And I still can only see three options here: Either we find "no consensus to unblock" and unblock anyway; or we find "no consensus to site ban" and site ban anyway; or we ignore the policy that says the only options are an unblock or a site ban (assuming the character of the discussion doesn't dramatically change between now and whenever this is finally closed). Can you see some option that I'm missing? GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The options are unblock or don't unblock. If there's a consensus to retain the block then there's an implicit community ban (which is defined by the community saying they should not be unblocked, and lasts until a later community decision says to unblock) and if there isn't then there isn't. I think Bishonen has explained it well enough in closing that latest "Site ban?" section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand their reasoning, but it still seems to me an outcome that will just cause more drama. Not that my efforts worked out any better, so maybe other heads are wiser than mine. GoldenRing (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I'll say it anyways. I don't think the options here need to be limited to "unblock" or "site ban". I know that the policy says this is a de-facto, and thus per WP's governance, a de-jure site ban, but I also know that IAR is a policy page. I think the standard offer should certainly be considered as a solution that both reflects the fact that the community clearly doesn't want to unblock, but also that the community clearly doesn't want a site ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I really think the site ban thing is a red herring and can be forgotten, with no need to mention it in any close - a decline to unblock just means a future unblock will need community consensus, and that's all that is meant by a community ban (as per WP:CBAN). What else can it mean? "The community says you are not allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia without a future community consensus, but you're not banned so in the meantime you will be able to..." what?

I remain unmoved from my position that all the closers need to determine is whether there is a consensus to unblock and whether there is a consensus for a topic ban. Answer those, and all other currently relevant questions are answered too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As an additional thought, I suppose it would be harmless to add "There is no consensus for a site ban", which would leave an effective CBAN there anyway but not explicit and nothing in addition to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35