User talk:Cabayi

Short URL

w.wiki/4Gpo

Your e-mail

Is there a reason you're asking privately? Is your e-mail on behalf of the Committee or just yourself?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason Bbb23. Does it need to be on behalf of the committee? Can't it just be one admin asking another admin what led to that action? Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I would like to know if the user appealed to the Committee and whether you're looking into it because of that or for some other reason. I don't receive e-mail from other admins asking me about the reasons for my block without them explaining why. Sometimes I'm asked on the user's Talk page if they request an unblock and another admin is interested in unblocking and so they want my input. And even then we only take it to e-mail if there's a privacy concern or one of us wants to say something that shouldn't be said publicly, and unless it's an admin I know well, that never - or almost never because I don't trust my memory - happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall offer an explanation. There appears to be no on-wiki basis for the block. There appears to be no off-wiki basis for the block in any of the usual places that off-wiki evidence would usually be noted. On the possibility that the evidence is off-wiki I asked privately.

As for any possible appeal to ArbCom (without confirming or denying), if the basis of the block is off-wiki then an appeal would be in the committee's jurisdiction. If the basis is on-wiki the appeal would be redirected to on-wiki processes. In fact, in the absence of a rationale, there is no basis for any admin other than yourself to assess any appeal.

In either case, asking for an explanation of the block is a simple WP:ADMINACCT request. Cabayi (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why I can't answer your question here - or, even better, on the user's Talk page? If you're concerned about an "off-wiki basis", there is none, so I wouldn't be saying anything that, IMO, needs to be private.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, given what I can see, there is no basis for any admin other than yourself to assess that need. Cabayi (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be coy, but I didn't understand that part of your response. I will take this to the user's Talk page and ping you when I've responded there. Not right now, but should be today sometime, probably even this morning (Pacific Time).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, quick question: Isn't User:Eden10Hazard an impersonation of Eden Hazard? According with Wp:IMPERSONATE, he can only use that name if it is his real name, right? Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eden10Hazardhas been editing constructively for over a decade. If you have a concern over the username Eden has at least earnt the courtesy of discussing it on their user talk page first. Cabayi (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I have no issues with his username. I was simply hoping that your answer would be “it is not Wp:IMPERSONATE because he explicitly stated on his user page that he is unrelated to him”, to which I would then answer “nice, then please change my name to Ronaldo7M, and I will then explicitly state on my user page that I’m unrelated to him”.

Therefore, my plan to convince you to change my username has failed, so I will now try another one. You said that “Eden has at least earnt the courtesy of discussing” his username because he edited “constructively for over a decade”. Well… I might have joined Wiki only three years ago, but I have already made more constructive contributions than Eden. In fact, Eden has created 1,035 articles, including +60 Cs and +10Bs, while I have created 1,199 articles, including +300 Cs and +100Bs. So, I have earned this courtesy as well.

Once again, this is not about Eden. I’m simply trying to convince you to revert your decision from May 5th, and change my username to Ronaldo7M. Speaking of which, I would like to point out that @FlightTime:, another experienced username changer, has stated “I have no problem with the rename, I don't think it's too similar”, and I would like to echo that sentiment.

If you decide to change my username, do it today (25/05/25).

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not chasing your straw man counterfactual. Enquiring into an existing issue (EH10) is not the same as having me create a new issue (CR7). In other contexts this line of argument is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't work.

You have indeed earnt the same courtesy as Eden10Hazard and you can rest assured that I am not going to soft block "Barr Theo" for impersonating Cristiano Ronaldo. Your current username has absolutely no problems in that regard.

Summoning FlightTime can be seen as WP:OTHERPARENT behaviour. FlightTime is free to use his tools according to his own judgement. I have no problem with that. I hope he will consider my reasons for declining when he decides how to respond.

To the substance of your request, that you won't be confused with Ronaldo. You have already edited his biography. There is no gap between your editing and the object of your potential impersonation. I remain unwilling to rename you to Ronaldo7M.

Can I also remind you that this is a volunteer project. Pinging users with artificial deadlines such as "within the next 22 hours, AKA on 05/05/2025" and "do it today (25/05/25)" is just plain annoying.

Regards, Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, that edit is from November 2023!! Are you really going to use that against me? Only 1% of my overall edits were made on 21st-century footballers. Everything else is from the first half of the 20th century or prior, so there is indeed quite a gap. If that is your concern, then feel free to give me a block restriction on the page of Cristiano Ronaldo (I don’t even know if such a thing is possible).

I’m still very confident that I “won't be confused with Ronaldo”… I mean, do you really think that anyone would believe that the real Ronaldo has spent HOURS on Wikipedia creating 1,199 articles?? Furthermore, if my username is changed to Ronaldo7M, I would explicitly state on my user page that I’m unrelated to him.

If I ever edit on Ronaldo's page ever again, or if I ever try to impersonate him, then you have my permission to block me indefinitely.

"I hope he will consider my reasons for declining", your reasons is the impersonation of Cristiano Ronaldo, to which FlightTime has already stated "I have no problem with the rename, I don't think it's too similar".

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it against you. It's an additional pointer that it's an unwise choice of username. You didn't accidentally choose 7 to add to Ronaldo. It's because he plays in #7 shirt and you're trying (admittedly with good faith intentions) to impersonate him. Cabayi (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, partially blocking you from the page of Cristiano Ronaldo while giving you that username would only create the impression that he had been caught editing with a conflict of interest. That's no fix. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I chose 7 because its his shirt number, just as Eden chose 10 for the same reason. But that doesn't mean that either of us is "trying to impersonate him". And in fact, I won't. And as I already told you, I will explicitly state on my user page that I'm unrelated to him.

If Ronaldo7M is truly that unacceptable, then what about Ronaldo7Mil? Is that enough? Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helping you warn the violators

Hi, I’m Starfall2015 and I would like to help you warn people about violations. You up? Starfall2015 chat 09:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down and think about what you're doing. Does a noticeboard for administrators to enforce the username policy really need to be told to look at the username policy? Watch what happens for a while before stepping in. I commend the advice in the editnotice on this page, Proverbs 17:28. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Account Rename

Thank you very much; I really am very grateful. —sardonism · t · c 13:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cabayi (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vanished user rename

Hi there, yesterday you renamed a user who wished to vanish to User:Renamed user b01a528d7f4e225a6c30730b82a79101. It turns out this account has been CU-confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Theofunny. Given this indicates the user was not in good standing, I believe it would be appropriate to request that the vanishing be undone? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new style vanishing is still less than a year old so these issues aren't yet (imo) 100% cast in stone, but I don't see the point of reverting the rename in this case.

The user was still in good standing at the time of the vanishing. (vanished 08:29, 7 June 2025, not blocked until 16:46, 8 June 2025).
There is no SPI case linking to the user's original name. If there were, creating redirects from old username to vanished username might be the preferable option.
The only record I see of the socking (no SPI page?) is Moneytrees's comment on the master's talk page which links to the vanished username, not the original. Reverting the renaming will only help obfuscate the connection which is contrary to the global rename policy.
Vanishing was, until July 2024, just a rename without any redirects. Since then the vanishing process also locks the account and removes the user's email address. AFAIK stewards have adopted a policy of not reverting the lock or renaming of new-style vanishings. The account is not coming back.

I'm happy to be swayed, and to take the discussion to other renamers, if you have reasons that undoing the rename aspect of the vanishing would benefit the project. Cabayi (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The socking's also mentioned on ANI here, in relation to the account having made personal attacks on another user before vanishing. Basically to me it's a case of feeling that "the user, being a sockpuppet apparently created for the purpose of attacking other users, was never in good standing", but if you don't think it suits being reverted back, then there's no big deal from my end - thanks for the quick response! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ANI permalink.

That's a reasonable view of "in good standing" at this end of the kaleidoscope. However at the other end, when renaming, it boils down to "Is the user blocked anywhere?". I don't think that any renamer looks further than that, nor would I expect them to. If they have personal knowledge of an ongoing ANI or SPI they may refuse to vanish, but it's a random chance.

Non-trivial exercise for illustration: check whether I'm in good standing as well as unblocked on ALL 844 projects where I've been "active".

Creating redirects at User:FantasyElect and User talk:FantasyElect would resolve all the problems, would it not? Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good idea - I'll do that, in fact. Thanks for explaining things, it's appreciated. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]