Revision as of 13:50, 4 March 2011 editDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →The dilemma you pose to content editors: you've lost it← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2025 edit undoTornadoLGS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,399 edits →New promotion approach | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE"> | |||
<big>'''Welcome to my talk page''' | |||
{{Archive basics | |||
|archive = User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|counter = 52 | |||
|headerlevel = 2 | |||
|maxarchivesize = 120K | |||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] --> | |||
{{archives | |||
| collapsible = yes | |||
| collapsed = yes | |||
|search=yes | |||
|image = ] | |||
|title = tracks of previous discussions | |||
}} | |||
{{clear}} | |||
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}} | |||
] | |||
<span></small> | |||
{{ |
{{Admin tasks}} | ||
]I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you. | |||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
{{clear}} | |||
]''' If you would rather communicate by email''', it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email. | |||
− | |||
{{skip to top and bottom}} | |||
== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? == | |||
I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. ] ] 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met ] in ]. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. ] (]) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was ''not'' considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what ] would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. ] ] 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm disappointed that you didn't address my ] concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Username query == | |||
Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at ]. Do you think there's a ] or ] problem with respect to {{no ping|Socceroos TV}}? I just want a second opinion before adding {{tlx|uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- ] (]) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- ] (]) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Request == | |||
Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}} It is at ]. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. ] ] 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Ah, gotcha. ] ] 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. ] ] 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks! ] (]) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
:] ] | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
:] ] | |||
:] ] | |||
] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ] | |||
</big> | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
{{imbox|text=<big>'''Want to tell me what you think of me as an administrator? Go right ahead! ] is live and any and all feedback is appreciated.'''</big>}} | |||
] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
:] ] | |||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
] '''Technical news''' | |||
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
] '''Arbitration''' | |||
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}. | |||
] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
---- | |||
{{center|{{flatlist| | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
}}}} | |||
<!-- | |||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
== Unblock of ] == | |||
Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following ], I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, ], which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. ] (] · ]) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. ] (] · ]) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I'll give it a shot I suppose. ] ] 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. ] ] 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? ] ] 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! ] (] · ]) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be ''currently'' blocked? ] ] 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Good catch, there was a <code><nowiki>!= "unblocked"</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>== "unblocked"</nowiki></code> somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at ] now? ] (] · ]) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::That was it, working now. ] ] 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Now you see me, now you don't. == | |||
I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to ] attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. ] ] 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of ]. ] ] 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Potential topic ban violation == | |||
Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this. | |||
I was reading some military history articles and found my way to ] and saw that there was a ] for the user ] adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against ].<br> | |||
I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand. | |||
Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) ] (]) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)<br> | |||
:And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... ] (]) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. ] ] 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. ] (]) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion review for ] == | |||
== Pending changes == | |||
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> –] (]]) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== RfC notice == | |||
Hi. | |||
Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. ] does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the ], which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> | |||
:Funny you should mention that, as I have just been ] so that admins have some clear guidance on if we are supposed to be using it or not. There is no clear statement anywhere that I have been able to find that says to either keep using it or to stop. Currently when protecting a page an admin sees this message "''The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. No page in the Misplaced Pages namespace should be protected under pending changes except those for testing.''" I think it is time to resolve this issue, but somebody needs to get the ball rolling and draft an RFC or something. ] (]) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Ah; I did skim-read that discussion, but didn't take in that you'd written there. This certainly does need some clarification. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::] fire away. Already added to ], and I have asked for a sitenotice . ] (]) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::That looks good, yep; I will follow it with interest, and hope to join in. Thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Please undo == | |||
Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and ] the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made ], and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, <font style="font-family: Georgia">]</font> 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Steven, thanks for taking the time to drop a line here. Reading your post to Risker is actually kind of a relief, nobody seemed to sure what the "official" stance on this was, and apparently its pretty much the same as everyone else. That stance being summed as "Are we supposed to be doing this or not? Somebody tell me please." I don't know how the community will feel about the "jury" idea, but its worth running up the flagpole. We'd want to be sure there were non-admin users involved if that is done. If hope you don't mind, I'm going to add a pointer to your statement at Risker's page to the RFC, it may help us cut through some grey areas. ] (]) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I'm glad it's helpful! Anyway, yeah it's totally fine to add a pointer to the thread on Risker's talk page, though I'll make a similar statement on the RfC about what the Foundation has been doing and what we're looking to get out of the discussion so that her talk page doesn't become a lengthy debate zone. <font style="font-family: Georgia">]</font> 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi, Zaphod, how are you! Sorry, but I believe ] to have been a mistake and would be grateful if you'd consider undoing it. I'm still trying to establish (in dilatory mode) whether a CCI is going to be necessary for this user, who has clocked up a good number of violations of our copyright policy. a further example, will blank and list in a moment. | |||
==Mary's Spiritual College and Centre == | |||
Not sure why you thought I might not wish to be consulted about the unblock in the normal way. Had you done so, I'd have said there's no possible benefit in unblocking a user with an imperfect grasp of copyright policy, and considerable scope for harm to the project – the CCI backlog counter hasn't been updated for a while, but last time I looked was at about 78000 pages. There's just a tiny handful of people working on that. ] (]) 22:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied. | |||
:I generally do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a ''de facto'' part of reviewing unblock requests. (in fact, unrelated to this specific situation, I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here) , I'll do it when something is unclear to me, I don't feel I'm seeing the context, etc, but this was a fairly straightforward COPYVIO block. I don't mean to imply in any way that it was wrong or unjustified, it looks like a good block to me. | |||
Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever! | |||
:However, it appears to me that the user simply did not understand exactly how copyright works, and how seriously it is taken on Misplaced Pages. This is one of several areas where Misplaced Pages's rules and expectations are ''considerably'' stricter than most of the rest of the modern internet, so I believe if a relatively new user makes a reasonable claim that they now understand the situation, a second chance is warranted, even if they have made rather egregious errors in the past. | |||
:I think we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block, and explains clearly how they intend to do that. | |||
:While I can understand your reservations about it, {{tq|imperfect grasp of copyright policy}} probably applies to a great many users. Some aspects of how copyright works are very straightforward, others have substantial grey area. I certainly can't claim to have a perfect understanding of it. I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around "a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work" and this user is indicating they now have at least that level of understanding. ] ] 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Hi both, I've referred this to ANI at ]. -- ] (]) 07:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Hmmm, disappointing... Our ] is crystal-clear: "{{teal|Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter}}". You're welcome to disagree with that of course, and welcome to try to change it if you wish, but for as long as you're an administrator you're expected to adhere to it. And if you don't like the policy, do it because it's just ordinary good manners. | |||
:::I have some limited sympathy for your second-chance crusade; as you surely know, we have a useful ] for just that purpose. | |||
:::Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention back to that user, now CU-blocked for further socking. Regards, ] (]) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{ping|Justlettersandnumbers}} How is it '''not''' a "]" when a user blocked for caused by their ignorance of familiarizes themselves with , apologizes for and promises to stop ? I'm very confused. ] (]) 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{tps}} Unrelated to the Aguahrz case: Beeblebrox, you said {{xt|I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here}}. That would be a welcome improvement. A significant amount of admins consider unblocks to be, to some extent, a reversal of the original admin's block. In my view, any legitimate unblock request will come with new information or developments, even just the passage of time and an undertaking not to repeat the conduct. It follows that considering the request is looking at a fresh situation with new considerations, not the same situation the admin before was looking at. Policy should make clear that admins don't own the unrelated situation just because the same user is involved. Clearly the question is one of degree, and unblocking just because the original block was bad is another case and likely an admin action reversal. ] 11:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{yo| arcticocean}} That's exactly the case I seem to have tried and failed to make. Nine times out of ten, I can see the reasons for a block, and don't disagree. If that all seems in order to me it seems odd that the blocking admin needs to be consulted when what is being evaluated is not the block itself, but rather the quality and sincerity of the unblock requests. | |||
:::I will ask questions when when I have an actual question to ask, but I've never understood why we should be mandated to ask when we ''have no actual questions''. The main reason that many have expressed is courtesy to the blocking admin, but that only makes sense if you ''are'' overturning their decision. With the exception of obvious errors we usually should give them a chance to explain themselves first, but it does not add up when all you are contemplating is giving the blocked user a second chance. | |||
:::Unfortunately if I were to propose this right now, I anticipate a substantial percentage of users would see it as a sort of "sour grapes" proposal no matter how carefully I explain that I was contemplating it before the current ANI thread, so it will need to wait unless somebody else wants to write it up. ] ] 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I have some thoughts on the ANI thread and you comment on unblocks at Wpo that I’d like to add here once I’m done with the current Arb case. ]] 16:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:That's a bear of a case.Looks like it's inching towards a result though. ] ] 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::It's not ''too'' bad, I feel like HJP was worse, even though there was a lot less to vote on. ]] 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== RE: Deletion decision of Wednesday 13 == | |||
It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:You nominated it as patent nonsense and blatant vandalism. I can understand what it says and it is not vulgar or obviously deliberately disruptive. It might be lies, it might not be notable, but I don't see how it was either of the things you nominated it as. It is now nominated via ] which is much more flexible than the deliberately narrow ]. ] (]) 06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
I would like to challenge the ]. The participation was minimal, and there was no real reasoning as to why an article subject supported by at least four reliable sources, possibly five, isn't notable. The two other participants said they didn't think that was enough, but considering that multiple independent sources discuss the album, I don't see how that's convincing.--] (] | ]) 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Palooka? == | |||
:The closers job is to do their best to read a consensus. Participation was minimal, no argument there, which unfortunately often makes consensus less clear. | |||
Sorry Beeblebrox, but is intended as an insult to ]? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's ]! <small>BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me...</small> ] (]) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:This was been open for three weeks, which is generally considered the maximum amount of relisting unless there are exceptional circumstances. The nominator and the one other participant besides yourself agreed on redirecting. In the five days the AFD remained open after that, neither you nor anyone else voiced any sort of objection to the idea. Redirecting in cases of marginal notability is generally considered a good alternative to deletion as it allows the subject to still be covered ''somewhere'', just without a stand-alone article. Any content worth merging can still be pulled out of the page history. | |||
:Yea, I do that a lot, usually spotting it right ''after'' pressing enter. ] (]) 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:So, I think my close was reasonable and within the bounds of admin discretion. ] ] 00:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I thought my keep vote was sufficient, I wasn't aware that I would then have to specifically voice objections to each contrary argument. I've been trying to avoid getting argumentative as I've of late been prone to getting into protracted, repetitive arguments. I definitely do appreciate the redirect rather than a hard delete. I just fail to see what justified it in light of the article meeting GNG standards.--] (] | ]) 12:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::You say it merits a stand-alone article, two others did not agree. It is not the closers' job to form their own opinion, but to do their best to come to a reasonable close that respects all valid arguments made during the debate. ] ] 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I understand. I was surprised by that outcome, and the other arguments made, given the demonstrated meeting of WP:V. I do appreciate the position you were in of making a decision.--] (] | ]) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== |
== hello == | ||
{{You've got mail}} | |||
I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks ] (]) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! ] (]) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Granting extended-confirmed early == | |||
== RevDel == | |||
Hello. Regarding ], my understanding based on ] is that administrators are free to grant {{code|extendedconfirmed}} as they see fit (see ] too). If you're nervous about them editing the relevant topic areas, you could grant it on the condition of staying away, I guess. | |||
Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. '''''] ]''''' 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
This isn't specifically about that request, which didn't have much chance of success, but just a general point because I know that you deal with a lot of requests on that page. Thanks, ] (]) 02:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== You missed some! :-) == | |||
:I... don't think ARCA is relevant anymore. As is seemingly being established by the committee right now ], the committee is no longer in control in any way of this user right. | |||
Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! ] (]) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
: |
:That being said, I admit I'm not entirely clear what the deal is with the translation tool, but I assume the community is deliberately restricting it to those that have met the minimum requirements. ] ] 02:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
::I don't follow, sorry. Nothing's been established at ''Palestine–Israel articles 5'' yet because as of writing this, an outright majority has rejected those changes. As the PD talk page makes clear, the Committee never had control over the user group: it created the 500/30 restriction, the Community created the user group, then the Committee modified the restriction to match the user group because based on a literal interpretation of it, accounts without 500/30 couldn't edit in restricted areas. At ''Palestine–Israel'', we could change the restriction to only allowing page movers to edit in it or whatever, but that wouldn't give us retroactive control over the user group.{{pb}}I had assumed that your reluctance to grant extended-confirmed early was over the ECR. Maybe I was wrong? For what it's worth, I think that ] was a decent example of granting extended-confirmed early: trusted on other projects and not likely to cause trouble over here. I think that the Community would be happy with a globally experienced user with fluent English being allowed access to the translation tool{{snd}}they can already translate with it to draft/userspace without extended-confirmed, so it's not like extended-confirmed makes a big difference there (see ], which I just created using my alternative account and can easily move into mainspace). ] (]) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Well I figured a couple of diffs would be sufficient for people to get the gist, didn't want to bore everyone with a tl;dr post! You might want to look at {{IP user|178.103.29.46}} I think that's the last of them... for now anyway. ] (]) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not saying I disagree, but current practice is reflected in the notice at the top of both the confirmed and extended confirmed PERM pages: ''"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."'' That has been the general understanding for some time. If there's any sort of exception for users that want to use the translation tool,I feel that should be made much more clear. ] ] 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{tpw}} Non-XC editors can still use the content translation tool; the ] only prevents publishing your translation directly into mainspace. You can still use it to translate into draftspace or userspace (and there is nothing stopping you from moving it to mainspace afterwards). ] and ] have some more details. Best, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks for that. I'm not sure this is common enough to formulate another boilerplate response, but this basic level of information is enough to me to suggest that the standard reply should be that you can still use the tool, you just have to submit the result as a draft. I'm guessing that is probably the intent behind this in the first place? ] ] 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think that is the best way to respond; that would be my guess too. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yep, see my demonstration with my alternative account (linked above). ] (]) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::Ugh... failure to read the thread closely enough. Sincere apologies for repeating you. Best <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I view that box as something to dampen expectations rather than a policy prescription. You're right that most administrators probably wouldn't be willing to grant extended-confirmed unless the account was a legitimate alternative account, but there's nothing that says that they {{em|can't}}. It's a bit like self-requested blocks: most administrators don't do them, but some (like you) do them, and that's fine. I can't force you to use your tools in ways that you don't want to, of course {{smiley}}, but my point here is that {{tq|Admins are not really empowered to grant this permission early}} is not accurate. Best wishes, ] (]) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Protection conflict == | |||
== Collapse of Anti-Christian violence in India discussion == | |||
Sorry, I edit conflicted with you when protecting ]. I was trying to avoid using 12 hours or 24 hours as that just seemed to easy to game, but may have overshot with 15 hours. Would you prefer it be dialed back? If so, adjust as you see fit. It sucks that it has to be protected at all. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- ] <]> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I saw the conflict and thought I had backed out of it, but I'm fine with whatever. I agree that it sucks, this is so tedious. ] ] 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Airdrie Astronomical Association == | |||
== You've got mail == | |||
Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page ] and redirect it to the same page, ]? —] 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}. ] (]) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=] (]) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
== Re:Sept. 11th == | |||
:{{yo|Thesazh}} I'm not really seeing why this needs to be discussed via email as you've already posted the same information when you nominated the article for speedy deletion. The user who declined the tagging posted two links in their edit summary to the other two deletion processes more suited to this type of situation. | |||
I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about ] and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. ] (]) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Given the level of sourcing and the apparent notability of the subject, I would guess ] would not succeed as anyone can simply decline that for any reason. That leaves ] as your remaining option. I couldn't say for a certainty how that would turn out, there have been some cases where articles on subjects of marginal notability have been deleted at the request of the subject, but it is by no means guaranteed. | |||
:Contradicting FORUM is absolutely '''not''' a listed exception to the ]. regardless of the ArbCom sanctions, I could easily block the both of you right now for plain old edit warring if I was so inclined, but I'd rather try to persuade the both of you to just cut it out. Telling him to piss off in an edit summary was really unhelpful as well, as you can see it has only served to inflame the situation. ] (]) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:However, the ] policy is there to protect article subjects and if there is specific content in the article that is problematic, that can be removed through normal editing, and in some cases may be ]. ] may be informative in this situation. | |||
:I've given the article a quick once-over and I do not see anything currently in it that is ], however I do think one could argue that the "controversies" section may be ] to that aspect as it is longer than the section on the entire rest of his career, and I can't help but speculate that that might be the actual issue here? ] ] 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Sander.v.Ginkel == | |||
:: This is a talk page. My comments are entitled to be there. I do not have to put up with distasteful editors telling me to 'piss off' and calling my comments lunatic. I especially do not have to be told what to do by such editors. The editor ] has every right to disagree with my point of view but does not have the right to remove my comments on a talk page. I request my comments be reinserted. Thanks ] (]) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm disinclined to take a side in this edit war, I have endeavored to maintain a position of neutrality around this page in order that I not become an ] and therefore unable to use my administrative tools or impose sanctions. However I do not wish to simply ignore your concerns so I believe I will write up a report at ] in order to solicit outside opinions. ] (]) 04:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. ] (]) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
FWIW, the numbers of the discussion were 16 support, 10 oppose, which isn't terribly poor (~62% majority). I felt a few of the opposes were weak and boiled down to "his past actions were harmful!", which he admitted, apologized numerous times for and vowed never to do again. Also, the one support comment you singled out for " telling us much" actually did have a multi-sentence rationale. In the end, I don't see why he couldn't of been unblocked with the requirement that his work be submitted to AFC, given that he had the potential to become an excellent editor in an under-developed area where help is needed (non-English, old sports). Sorry for the rant, I'm just rather frustrated at the loss of his potential contributions, given that he followed ] and I don't think there's much else he could have done in his request... ] (]) 16:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::: I've reinstated my comments. Not because I am edit warring but simply becuase this is a talk page page and my comments should not be censored by peopel wth an obvious political bias. Editors should not be allowed to censor talk pages. ] (]) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I really, really wish you hadn't done that right after I informed you that it is under discussion. ] (]) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Point of order: I'm only ''technically'' involved, if even that. I reverted once and, to be fair, Vexorg's statements had no place there; he was basically just bitching about the article as a whole. Talk pages aren't meant for that unless he's also offering some sort of solution. But I think you can see what I mean. ]] 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*You were involved in the edit war so I have to inform you of the ANI discussion or ''I'' get yelled at. ] (]) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'll grant that I did miss that with the editor I replied to. Often when closing threads, I will read them all the way through, and then kind of skim around taking a second look, and I can only assume that due to the break they put in there, upon a second view I mistakenly thought the content above their "support" was someone else's unsigned comment or something, I'll fix that. | |||
== Margins == | |||
:Overall I think this was reasonably close, and as I told them on their talk page I would expect that a future unblock requests reflecting the same behavior as we've seen recently would likely be successful. The arguments that socking was chronic and relatively recent were a well-reasoned objection to some of the arguments to unban. There may have been slightly fewer of them but I feel it was enough to make a reasonable finding of no consensus. ] ] 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Is it correct that "no consensus" after a long discussion should default to the block remaining in place? Isn't it equally plausible that an editor should be free to edit unless there's a consensus to maintain a block? (I've been asking this question for about 15 years.) Regards, ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::That's certainly a fair question, but above my current pay grade. | |||
:::I keep telling myself I'm never going to try and change a substantive policy again, and then I find myself trying anyway, despite the fact that it has gotten exponentially more difficult in the last decade or so, and it usually doesn't end well. ] ] 23:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Dasdipankar2005 == | |||
I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!--] (]) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
You unblocked the above user without consulting with me. I believe this is not the first time you've done this. From your comments, I can see you disagree with the block. That is a good reason for arguing the user should be unblocked but ''not'' a good reason for unilaterally unblocking them.--] (]) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Closing the ] == | |||
:Consulting the blocking admin is not a hard requirement, in particular when there are ''"significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking''" which I believe was reflected in their unblock requests. | |||
AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">]] <big><sup>]</sup></big></span> 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Your block was just as "unilateral" as my unblock, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there. ] ] 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
::"Unilateral" meant only that you did it without consulting with me or any other administrator. Your interpretation of "significant change..." is way off base. I didn't expect you to respond to this well. I'll think about whether to take this further, but I don't much care for the inevitable unpleasantness that would ensue if I did. As always, it was lovely talking to you.--] (]) 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, step 1 {{done}}. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">]] <big><sup>]</sup></big></span> 05:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I... don't feel like I'm the one making smarmy sarcastic comments here, I was simply direct in my reply to you, but whatever. ] ] 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>(posting this here as it is somewhat off the topic of the DRV)</small> You see, consensus is a subtle thing sometimes. It's hard to describe exactly how a determination is made. It starts with approaching the discussion as an uninvolved party who doesn't care if the article is deleted or not. I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focussing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not. What I almost never do is actually look at the article itself, because then I may form my own opinion and no longer be able to make an impartial decision. If I don't feel like there was a consensus reached I will close it as "no consensus" or relist it for another week. I'm not sure how to define it any more concretely than that. ] (]) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::I guess I understand that part, but the article has no place on an encyclopedia, and anyone who views it will see it. Reading people saying "the article looks good now" or "there are references now" isn't the same as seeing that the article is 100% trivia and the references do not establish notability. A consensus is achieved from the strongest argument... Without being familiar with what they're talking about, how do you evaluate what the strongest argument is and what the consensus is? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">]] <big><sup>]</sup></big></span> 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sometimes if there is disagreement about certain issues such as the quality of a particular source then you have to go look for yourself. However an argument like "the article is 100% trivia" while possibly true, is something that can be fixed by editing. What is essential is that the closing admin not make a ]. ] (]) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::What if the "closing admin" figures out the consensus he thought was obvious was flawed and decides to NOT close it? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">]] <big><sup>]</sup></big></span> 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== I == | ||
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for . If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, . This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. ''']]''' 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
guess maybe then you should check to see that ] and ] aren't meatpuppets. ] (]) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks! == | |||
:Um... no? Don't edit war. This is not a complicated concept. ] ] 04:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --] (]) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I really didn't like seeing users trying to beat you up over the thing with Gobbles, which I thought was completely unfair and was mischaracterized. I'm glad it didn't torpedo your RFA. Congratulations, and welcome to the janitorial corps. ] (]) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== recollection == | |||
==Musical theatre== | |||
After re-reading all your comments concerning "the great edit war" mfd, it's starting to sound familiar. I feel like I commented on this or something very similar in the past. I looked at nom 1, and I don't see anything - was there another discussion somewhere that you can recall? I'm starting to wonder if this is a re-creation. - <b>]</b> 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR on the article talk page. | |||
:There was also this but I don't see any comment from you there. This vandalism has been going on for well over a decade, maybe you just reverted some of it at some point. ] ] 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
While this seems to be a clear ] case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted. | |||
::Thank you for looking. | |||
::I'm almost positive it was this, or something very much like it. I remember starting out thinking merge, just like this time, then when we found out more, it became clear that it needed to go. | |||
::It was like a "how-to" page on how to vandalize. maybe it was in user space. But anyway, when you said youtube video, that's what made me think of it. | |||
::Anyway, I'll go update my comments. Thanks again for looking into this. - <b>]</b> 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Harold Ivory Williams Jr. == | |||
I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the ] problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. --] (]) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Good Morning Beeblebrox, | |||
:Hi, Beeblebrox. Since your archiving of the ] talk page today, Ronz has made voluminous contributions to that page under numerous headings, but they are vague, difficult to understand, and scattered all over the place. I have asked, ], for her/him to make a much more concise list of what he/she feels are the most important items to work on, so we can address or discuss them (hopefully in one place instead of scattered all over the talk page). Would you kindly take a look at the talk page there and try to help us find a way forward? Thanks for any assistance. -- ] (]) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
I was wondering if you can tell me how I can improve the page you deleted for Harold Ivory Williams in hopes to relist him and be accepted. What can I do to improve the page? ] (]) 15:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
How much longer should this go on before it's worth requesting protection again? --] (]) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Find more ] from ] is about all I can say. A lesser option is to add ''some'' properly sourced content to the article on his father and ] the deleted article there. ] ] 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I would also welcome your advice and/or intervention. Note that I have posted at ], because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- ] (]) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Beeblebrox, I'd welcome your input in the ANI thread as a matter of some urgency. There has been what was, to me at least, an unexpected development. ] (]) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion review for ] == | |||
==User forging your name to RFPP== | |||
] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
You should be made aware of <s>{{user|Pplease}}</s> {{user|Pplasse}}, a ] who also uses {{IP|75.1.30.121}} and who, after an administrator fully-protected {{la|Jason Plummer (politician)}} against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on ] to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you: , . Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --] (]) 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like another admin is already on the case, thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I changed the username above. I keep typoing his username; it's actually Pplasse. Sorry about that. --] (]) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== New promotion approach == | |||
==The dilemma you pose to content editors== | |||
Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that. | |||
Thought I'd continue this here rather than at UAA (though I am about to walk the dog). But I am a bit curious about the new approach with promotional usernames since I have known that a promotional username combined with a promotional draft has previously bee grounds for an immediate block. I know for promotion of individuals, I usually give three strikes before reporting them as a promotion-only account. ] (]) 23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Misplaced Pages and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him and . So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Misplaced Pages, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. --] (]) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
: {{tps}} First, remember ] - your tirade above is so non-AGF, it's not funny - if I was Beeblebrox, I wouldn't reply to such filth. Second, remember that ] and ] are different - ''any'' admin can block you after fewer than 3 reverts. On certain high-profile articles for example, ] is pretty common. If an admin says that due to high traffic, a specific article is temporarily on 1RR - or if the article is already part a topic of curretn 1RR restriction, then guess what; its restricted. If any editor - longstanding or not - decides to play stupid and ignore that basic fact, well ... you already know what happens. That's the editor's fault, not the admins. If you disagree with the restrictions, you contact the admin (and possibly ]) BEFORE testing the waters. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The basic idea is that creating a draft or user page that is promotional is not the same thing as spamming in article space. The idea is to advise them of exactly what the issue is with their username ''and'' with their apparent COI and invite them to correct those issues. If they spam in articles, that still gets you a block. | |||
::Filth. Did you say filth? Did you? Filth... filth... isn't that what they said about the Jews? You say you can block after just 1 RR! Staggering power! You say I don't assume good faith! With Beeblebrox I was most certainty assuming good faith and anticipating a sane and happy outcome. With your outburst, I am most certainly not assuming good faith. How could anyone possibly assume that after your "''tirade''" (but that's the term you used, isn't it?) You, yourself, are currently a key problematic administrator on Misplaced Pages, hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project. What space is there now for any content editor on Misplaced Pages? What has happening to Misplaced Pages? Is this real or just a nightmare that can be awakened from? Who are you to do this stuff BWilkins? Where is your track record of genuine contributions to Misplaced Pages? If you have none, how did it come about that we made you an "administrator"? --] (]) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:So far, it seems like the results are fairly similar to soft-blocking them. Most of them are not heard from again, a few ignore the concern and keep spamming and get blocked, and there is a small minority that will change their username and try to contribute within policy, and they don't have to be subject to a pop quiz on Misplaced Pages policy as they might had they been blocked. It's that small minority that makes it worth trying this, in my opinion. It is also possibly helping a little with the backlog at ]. ] ] 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: First, I'm sensing an accusation of Nazi-like behaviour, and that won't end well for you. Second, I'm currently a "key problematic administrator"? "Hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project"? Really? Where? When? Launching an odd and unfounded statement like that really does little for your credibility. You're off your rocker, badly. You might wish to take a couple of hours off, have some tea, and rethink your approach with others on this collaborative project. Of course, my track record of actual contributions is available for all to see...you just need to look before acting as you are. You've really lost it. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::That sounds fair. I think as long as promotion-only accounts (whether it's blatant ] or just not getting it) get blocked before becoming autoconfirmed that sounds like a good deal. I do notice that most accounts who do personal self-promotion don't try to recreate a draft slapped with G11. ] (]) 23:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2025
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 22 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 73 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 18 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 59 sockpuppet investigations
- 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 9 requests for RD1 redaction
- 101 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 23 requested closures
- 35 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 22 Copyright problems
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCurrently, no arbitration cases are open.
Recently closed cases (Past cases)Case name | Closed |
---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | 23 Jan 2025 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal | none | none | 23 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
−
Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?
I don’t understand why you redirected Mary-Catherine Deibel. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? Nnev66 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. Beeblebrox 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote "A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe." This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. Nnev66 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was not considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what CSD would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. Beeblebrox 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that you didn't address my WP:NOTARG concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. Nnev66 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was not considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what CSD would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. Beeblebrox 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote "A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe." This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. Nnev66 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Username query
Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at WP:UAA. Do you think there's a WP:CORPNAME or WP:ISU problem with respect to Socceroos TV? I just want a second opinion before adding {{uw-username}}
template to their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. Beeblebrox 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Request
Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine article? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done It is at User:Makeandtoss/Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. Beeblebrox 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. Beeblebrox 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. Beeblebrox 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
[REDACTED] Oversight changes
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Unblock of User:82.44.247.44
Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following the discussion in which we both took part, I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, User:Chaotic Enby/RecentUnblockHighlighter.js, which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? Beeblebrox 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll give it a shot I suppose. Beeblebrox 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. Beeblebrox 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? Beeblebrox 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be currently blocked? Beeblebrox 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch, there was a
!= "unblocked"
instead of== "unblocked"
somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at User talk:82.44.247.44 now? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- That was it, working now. Beeblebrox 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch, there was a
- It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be currently blocked? Beeblebrox 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? Beeblebrox 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. Beeblebrox 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll give it a shot I suppose. Beeblebrox 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Now you see me, now you don't.
I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to DoS attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. Beeblebrox 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of Leave the World Behind. Beeblebrox 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Potential topic ban violation
Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
I was reading some military history articles and found my way to Battle of Baku and saw that there was a revert for the user 82.44.247.44 adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against MOS:DECISIVE.
I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand.
Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) Sigma440 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... Sigma440 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. Beeblebrox 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. Sigma440 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. Beeblebrox 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Guite people
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guite people. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC notice
Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please undo
Hi, Zaphod, how are you! Sorry, but I believe this to have been a mistake and would be grateful if you'd consider undoing it. I'm still trying to establish (in dilatory mode) whether a CCI is going to be necessary for this user, who has clocked up a good number of violations of our copyright policy. Here's a further example, will blank and list in a moment.
Not sure why you thought I might not wish to be consulted about the unblock in the normal way. Had you done so, I'd have said there's no possible benefit in unblocking a user with an imperfect grasp of copyright policy, and considerable scope for harm to the project – the CCI backlog counter hasn't been updated for a while, but last time I looked was at about 78000 pages. There's just a tiny handful of people working on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I generally do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a de facto part of reviewing unblock requests. (in fact, unrelated to this specific situation, I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here) , I'll do it when something is unclear to me, I don't feel I'm seeing the context, etc, but this was a fairly straightforward COPYVIO block. I don't mean to imply in any way that it was wrong or unjustified, it looks like a good block to me.
- However, it appears to me that the user simply did not understand exactly how copyright works, and how seriously it is taken on Misplaced Pages. This is one of several areas where Misplaced Pages's rules and expectations are considerably stricter than most of the rest of the modern internet, so I believe if a relatively new user makes a reasonable claim that they now understand the situation, a second chance is warranted, even if they have made rather egregious errors in the past.
- I think we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block, and explains clearly how they intend to do that.
- While I can understand your reservations about it,
imperfect grasp of copyright policy
probably applies to a great many users. Some aspects of how copyright works are very straightforward, others have substantial grey area. I certainly can't claim to have a perfect understanding of it. I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around "a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work" and this user is indicating they now have at least that level of understanding. Beeblebrox 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Hi both, I've referred this to ANI at WP:ANI#Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm, disappointing... Our policy is crystal-clear: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter". You're welcome to disagree with that of course, and welcome to try to change it if you wish, but for as long as you're an administrator you're expected to adhere to it. And if you don't like the policy, do it because it's just ordinary good manners.
- I have some limited sympathy for your second-chance crusade; as you surely know, we have a useful template for just that purpose.
- Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention back to that user, now CU-blocked for further socking. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: How is it not a "significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking" when a user blocked for caused by their ignorance of familiarizes themselves with , apologizes for and promises to stop ? I'm very confused. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Unrelated to the Aguahrz case: Beeblebrox, you said I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here. That would be a welcome improvement. A significant amount of admins consider unblocks to be, to some extent, a reversal of the original admin's block. In my view, any legitimate unblock request will come with new information or developments, even just the passage of time and an undertaking not to repeat the conduct. It follows that considering the request is looking at a fresh situation with new considerations, not the same situation the admin before was looking at. Policy should make clear that admins don't own the unrelated situation just because the same user is involved. Clearly the question is one of degree, and unblocking just because the original block was bad is another case and likely an admin action reversal. arcticocean ■ 11:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Arcticocean: That's exactly the case I seem to have tried and failed to make. Nine times out of ten, I can see the reasons for a block, and don't disagree. If that all seems in order to me it seems odd that the blocking admin needs to be consulted when what is being evaluated is not the block itself, but rather the quality and sincerity of the unblock requests.
- I will ask questions when when I have an actual question to ask, but I've never understood why we should be mandated to ask when we have no actual questions. The main reason that many have expressed is courtesy to the blocking admin, but that only makes sense if you are overturning their decision. With the exception of obvious errors we usually should give them a chance to explain themselves first, but it does not add up when all you are contemplating is giving the blocked user a second chance.
- Unfortunately if I were to propose this right now, I anticipate a substantial percentage of users would see it as a sort of "sour grapes" proposal no matter how carefully I explain that I was contemplating it before the current ANI thread, so it will need to wait unless somebody else wants to write it up. Beeblebrox 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi both, I've referred this to ANI at WP:ANI#Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have some thoughts on the ANI thread and you comment on unblocks at Wpo that I’d like to add here once I’m done with the current Arb case. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bear of a case.Looks like it's inching towards a result though. Beeblebrox 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not too bad, I feel like HJP was worse, even though there was a lot less to vote on. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bear of a case.Looks like it's inching towards a result though. Beeblebrox 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
RE: Deletion decision of Wednesday 13
I would like to challenge the decision to redirect Skeletons. The participation was minimal, and there was no real reasoning as to why an article subject supported by at least four reliable sources, possibly five, isn't notable. The two other participants said they didn't think that was enough, but considering that multiple independent sources discuss the album, I don't see how that's convincing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The closers job is to do their best to read a consensus. Participation was minimal, no argument there, which unfortunately often makes consensus less clear.
- This was been open for three weeks, which is generally considered the maximum amount of relisting unless there are exceptional circumstances. The nominator and the one other participant besides yourself agreed on redirecting. In the five days the AFD remained open after that, neither you nor anyone else voiced any sort of objection to the idea. Redirecting in cases of marginal notability is generally considered a good alternative to deletion as it allows the subject to still be covered somewhere, just without a stand-alone article. Any content worth merging can still be pulled out of the page history.
- So, I think my close was reasonable and within the bounds of admin discretion. Beeblebrox 00:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought my keep vote was sufficient, I wasn't aware that I would then have to specifically voice objections to each contrary argument. I've been trying to avoid getting argumentative as I've of late been prone to getting into protracted, repetitive arguments. I definitely do appreciate the redirect rather than a hard delete. I just fail to see what justified it in light of the article meeting GNG standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You say it merits a stand-alone article, two others did not agree. It is not the closers' job to form their own opinion, but to do their best to come to a reasonable close that respects all valid arguments made during the debate. Beeblebrox 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. I was surprised by that outcome, and the other arguments made, given the demonstrated meeting of WP:V. I do appreciate the position you were in of making a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You say it merits a stand-alone article, two others did not agree. It is not the closers' job to form their own opinion, but to do their best to come to a reasonable close that respects all valid arguments made during the debate. Beeblebrox 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought my keep vote was sufficient, I wasn't aware that I would then have to specifically voice objections to each contrary argument. I've been trying to avoid getting argumentative as I've of late been prone to getting into protracted, repetitive arguments. I definitely do appreciate the redirect rather than a hard delete. I just fail to see what justified it in light of the article meeting GNG standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
hello
Hello, Beeblebrox. 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.
Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Granting extended-confirmed early
Hello. Regarding comments like this at PERM, my understanding based on this 2022 ARCA is that administrators are free to grant extendedconfirmed
as they see fit (see discussion at PERM too). If you're nervous about them editing the relevant topic areas, you could grant it on the condition of staying away, I guess.
This isn't specifically about that request, which didn't have much chance of success, but just a general point because I know that you deal with a lot of requests on that page. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I... don't think ARCA is relevant anymore. As is seemingly being established by the committee right now here, the committee is no longer in control in any way of this user right.
- That being said, I admit I'm not entirely clear what the deal is with the translation tool, but I assume the community is deliberately restricting it to those that have met the minimum requirements. Beeblebrox 02:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't follow, sorry. Nothing's been established at Palestine–Israel articles 5 yet because as of writing this, an outright majority has rejected those changes. As the PD talk page makes clear, the Committee never had control over the user group: it created the 500/30 restriction, the Community created the user group, then the Committee modified the restriction to match the user group because based on a literal interpretation of it, accounts without 500/30 couldn't edit in restricted areas. At Palestine–Israel, we could change the restriction to only allowing page movers to edit in it or whatever, but that wouldn't give us retroactive control over the user group.I had assumed that your reluctance to grant extended-confirmed early was over the ECR. Maybe I was wrong? For what it's worth, I think that this was a decent example of granting extended-confirmed early: trusted on other projects and not likely to cause trouble over here. I think that the Community would be happy with a globally experienced user with fluent English being allowed access to the translation tool – they can already translate with it to draft/userspace without extended-confirmed, so it's not like extended-confirmed makes a big difference there (see this, which I just created using my alternative account and can easily move into mainspace). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I disagree, but current practice is reflected in the notice at the top of both the confirmed and extended confirmed PERM pages: "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied." That has been the general understanding for some time. If there's any sort of exception for users that want to use the translation tool,I feel that should be made much more clear. Beeblebrox 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Non-XC editors can still use the content translation tool; the filter in question only prevents publishing your translation directly into mainspace. You can still use it to translate into draftspace or userspace (and there is nothing stopping you from moving it to mainspace afterwards). WP:CXT and WP:X2 have some more details. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm not sure this is common enough to formulate another boilerplate response, but this basic level of information is enough to me to suggest that the standard reply should be that you can still use the tool, you just have to submit the result as a draft. I'm guessing that is probably the intent behind this in the first place? Beeblebrox 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that is the best way to respond; that would be my guess too. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yep, see my demonstration with my alternative account (linked above). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh... failure to read the thread closely enough. Sincere apologies for repeating you. Best HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm not sure this is common enough to formulate another boilerplate response, but this basic level of information is enough to me to suggest that the standard reply should be that you can still use the tool, you just have to submit the result as a draft. I'm guessing that is probably the intent behind this in the first place? Beeblebrox 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I view that box as something to dampen expectations rather than a policy prescription. You're right that most administrators probably wouldn't be willing to grant extended-confirmed unless the account was a legitimate alternative account, but there's nothing that says that they can't. It's a bit like self-requested blocks: most administrators don't do them, but some (like you) do them, and that's fine. I can't force you to use your tools in ways that you don't want to, of course , but my point here is that
Admins are not really empowered to grant this permission early
is not accurate. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Non-XC editors can still use the content translation tool; the filter in question only prevents publishing your translation directly into mainspace. You can still use it to translate into draftspace or userspace (and there is nothing stopping you from moving it to mainspace afterwards). WP:CXT and WP:X2 have some more details. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I disagree, but current practice is reflected in the notice at the top of both the confirmed and extended confirmed PERM pages: "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied." That has been the general understanding for some time. If there's any sort of exception for users that want to use the translation tool,I feel that should be made much more clear. Beeblebrox 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't follow, sorry. Nothing's been established at Palestine–Israel articles 5 yet because as of writing this, an outright majority has rejected those changes. As the PD talk page makes clear, the Committee never had control over the user group: it created the 500/30 restriction, the Community created the user group, then the Committee modified the restriction to match the user group because based on a literal interpretation of it, accounts without 500/30 couldn't edit in restricted areas. At Palestine–Israel, we could change the restriction to only allowing page movers to edit in it or whatever, but that wouldn't give us retroactive control over the user group.I had assumed that your reluctance to grant extended-confirmed early was over the ECR. Maybe I was wrong? For what it's worth, I think that this was a decent example of granting extended-confirmed early: trusted on other projects and not likely to cause trouble over here. I think that the Community would be happy with a globally experienced user with fluent English being allowed access to the translation tool – they can already translate with it to draft/userspace without extended-confirmed, so it's not like extended-confirmed makes a big difference there (see this, which I just created using my alternative account and can easily move into mainspace). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Protection conflict
Sorry, I edit conflicted with you when protecting Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk. I was trying to avoid using 12 hours or 24 hours as that just seemed to easy to game, but may have overshot with 15 hours. Would you prefer it be dialed back? If so, adjust as you see fit. It sucks that it has to be protected at all. -- Ponyo 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I saw the conflict and thought I had backed out of it, but I'm fine with whatever. I agree that it sucks, this is so tedious. Beeblebrox 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, Beeblebrox. 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. Thesazh (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Thesazh: I'm not really seeing why this needs to be discussed via email as you've already posted the same information when you nominated the article for speedy deletion. The user who declined the tagging posted two links in their edit summary to the other two deletion processes more suited to this type of situation.
- Given the level of sourcing and the apparent notability of the subject, I would guess proposed deletion would not succeed as anyone can simply decline that for any reason. That leaves a deletion discussion as your remaining option. I couldn't say for a certainty how that would turn out, there have been some cases where articles on subjects of marginal notability have been deleted at the request of the subject, but it is by no means guaranteed.
- However, the biographies of living persons policy is there to protect article subjects and if there is specific content in the article that is problematic, that can be removed through normal editing, and in some cases may be revision deleted. BLPDELETE may be informative in this situation.
- I've given the article a quick once-over and I do not see anything currently in it that is PII, however I do think one could argue that the "controversies" section may be giving undue weight to that aspect as it is longer than the section on the entire rest of his career, and I can't help but speculate that that might be the actual issue here? Beeblebrox 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Sander.v.Ginkel
FWIW, the numbers of the discussion were 16 support, 10 oppose, which isn't terribly poor (~62% majority). I felt a few of the opposes were weak and boiled down to "his past actions were harmful!", which he admitted, apologized numerous times for and vowed never to do again. Also, the one support comment you singled out for " telling us much" actually did have a multi-sentence rationale. In the end, I don't see why he couldn't of been unblocked with the requirement that his work be submitted to AFC, given that he had the potential to become an excellent editor in an under-developed area where help is needed (non-English, old sports). Sorry for the rant, I'm just rather frustrated at the loss of his potential contributions, given that he followed WP:SO and I don't think there's much else he could have done in his request... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll grant that I did miss that with the editor I replied to. Often when closing threads, I will read them all the way through, and then kind of skim around taking a second look, and I can only assume that due to the break they put in there, upon a second view I mistakenly thought the content above their "support" was someone else's unsigned comment or something, I'll fix that.
- Overall I think this was reasonably close, and as I told them on their talk page I would expect that a future unblock requests reflecting the same behavior as we've seen recently would likely be successful. The arguments that socking was chronic and relatively recent were a well-reasoned objection to some of the arguments to unban. There may have been slightly fewer of them but I feel it was enough to make a reasonable finding of no consensus. Beeblebrox 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is it correct that "no consensus" after a long discussion should default to the block remaining in place? Isn't it equally plausible that an editor should be free to edit unless there's a consensus to maintain a block? (I've been asking this question for about 15 years.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's certainly a fair question, but above my current pay grade.
- I keep telling myself I'm never going to try and change a substantive policy again, and then I find myself trying anyway, despite the fact that it has gotten exponentially more difficult in the last decade or so, and it usually doesn't end well. Beeblebrox 23:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is it correct that "no consensus" after a long discussion should default to the block remaining in place? Isn't it equally plausible that an editor should be free to edit unless there's a consensus to maintain a block? (I've been asking this question for about 15 years.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Dasdipankar2005
You unblocked the above user without consulting with me. I believe this is not the first time you've done this. From your comments, I can see you disagree with the block. That is a good reason for arguing the user should be unblocked but not a good reason for unilaterally unblocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consulting the blocking admin is not a hard requirement, in particular when there are "significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking" which I believe was reflected in their unblock requests.
- Your block was just as "unilateral" as my unblock, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there. Beeblebrox 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Unilateral" meant only that you did it without consulting with me or any other administrator. Your interpretation of "significant change..." is way off base. I didn't expect you to respond to this well. I'll think about whether to take this further, but I don't much care for the inevitable unpleasantness that would ensue if I did. As always, it was lovely talking to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I... don't feel like I'm the one making smarmy sarcastic comments here, I was simply direct in my reply to you, but whatever. Beeblebrox 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Unilateral" meant only that you did it without consulting with me or any other administrator. Your interpretation of "significant change..." is way off base. I didn't expect you to respond to this well. I'll think about whether to take this further, but I don't much care for the inevitable unpleasantness that would ensue if I did. As always, it was lovely talking to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I
guess maybe then you should check to see that User:JayBeeEll and User:XOR'easter aren't meatpuppets. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um... no? Don't edit war. This is not a complicated concept. Beeblebrox 04:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
recollection
After re-reading all your comments concerning "the great edit war" mfd, it's starting to sound familiar. I feel like I commented on this or something very similar in the past. I looked at nom 1, and I don't see anything - was there another discussion somewhere that you can recall? I'm starting to wonder if this is a re-creation. - jc37 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was also this RFD but I don't see any comment from you there. This vandalism has been going on for well over a decade, maybe you just reverted some of it at some point. Beeblebrox 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking.
- I'm almost positive it was this, or something very much like it. I remember starting out thinking merge, just like this time, then when we found out more, it became clear that it needed to go.
- It was like a "how-to" page on how to vandalize. maybe it was in user space. But anyway, when you said youtube video, that's what made me think of it.
- Anyway, I'll go update my comments. Thanks again for looking into this. - jc37 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Harold Ivory Williams Jr.
Good Morning Beeblebrox,
I was wondering if you can tell me how I can improve the page you deleted for Harold Ivory Williams in hopes to relist him and be accepted. What can I do to improve the page? Williamsivy (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Find more significant coverage from reliable sources is about all I can say. A lesser option is to add some properly sourced content to the article on his father and redirect the deleted article there. Beeblebrox 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Fartcoin
EveSturwin has asked for a deletion review of Fartcoin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
New promotion approach
Thought I'd continue this here rather than at UAA (though I am about to walk the dog). But I am a bit curious about the new approach with promotional usernames since I have known that a promotional username combined with a promotional draft has previously bee grounds for an immediate block. I know for promotion of individuals, I usually give three strikes before reporting them as a promotion-only account. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The basic idea is that creating a draft or user page that is promotional is not the same thing as spamming in article space. The idea is to advise them of exactly what the issue is with their username and with their apparent COI and invite them to correct those issues. If they spam in articles, that still gets you a block.
- So far, it seems like the results are fairly similar to soft-blocking them. Most of them are not heard from again, a few ignore the concern and keep spamming and get blocked, and there is a small minority that will change their username and try to contribute within policy, and they don't have to be subject to a pop quiz on Misplaced Pages policy as they might had they been blocked. It's that small minority that makes it worth trying this, in my opinion. It is also possibly helping a little with the backlog at RFU. Beeblebrox 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds fair. I think as long as promotion-only accounts (whether it's blatant WP:NOTHERE or just not getting it) get blocked before becoming autoconfirmed that sounds like a good deal. I do notice that most accounts who do personal self-promotion don't try to recreate a draft slapped with G11. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)