Misplaced Pages

User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:26, 18 October 2014 editSaadkhan12345 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,929 edits →A cup of tea for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2025 edit undoTornadoLGS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,374 edits →New promotion approach 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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
<span></small>
|counter = 52
{{archives
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->
{{archives
| collapsible = yes | collapsible = yes
| collapsed = yes}} | collapsed = yes
|search=yes
]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.
|image = ]
|title = tracks of previous discussions
}}
{{clear}}
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}


]
]''' If you have a question or comment about an ] matter it would probably be better to post it at the relevant case page or the ArbCom noticeboard unless it is specifically about my own actions.
{{Admin tasks}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>


{{clear}}
] I am an ], but I will not be very active in that capacity during my term on the Arbitration Committee. If you need to request oversight, following the process at ] is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion.
−
{{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">
]
]

] '''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 ] ==
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 ==

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)

== Please undo ==

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.

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)

: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, {{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 ==

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.--] (] &#124; ]) 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. ] ] 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.--] (] &#124; ]) 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.--] (] &#124; ]) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

== hello ==

{{You've got mail}}
Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! ] (]) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

== Granting extended-confirmed early ==

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.

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)

: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.
: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)
:::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>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;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>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;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>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;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 ==

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)

: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)

== You've got mail ==

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=] (]) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:{{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.
: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.
: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 ==

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'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. ] ] 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 ==

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)

: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. ] ] 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)
:::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)


== I ==


guess maybe then you should check to see that ] and ] aren't meatpuppets. ] (]) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] / ] merge ==


:Um... no? Don't edit war. This is not a complicated concept. ] ] 04:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that you may not see this for some time, but I'll leave a comment anyway. Since you were the one who proposed the merge (and I agree it should be done), wouldn't it make more sense to merge back to the main ] article, rather than the other direction? Quite a bit of the content in the ] article (a solo project) was literally "stolen" (I AGF that it wasn't done maliciously), without attribution, from the Reindeer article anyway. I have restored that deleted content to the reindeer article, without doing anything with the caribou article. The main Reindeer article should be able to cover the entire ''Rangifer tarandus'' subject, while still allowing some subarticles for specific subspecies. -- ] (]) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


== recollection ==
: BTW, the ultimate title (Caribou vs Reindeer) isn't a big issue with me. It's the content that counts. I think one main article for ''rangifer tarandus'' should cover the subject, regardless of which title we choose. -- ] (]) 07:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
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)


: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)
== Asscrack ==
::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 regret having made such a fuss over . I know you were just trying to stop a fiasco from happening. Please accept my apologies. :) ] (]) 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Good Morning Beeblebrox,
== Template:Editnotices/Page/New Year's Eve (film) ==


Hi Beeblebrox. I believe this editnotice (which you created) is no longer required (it expired on 1 March 2013 and the film was released in 2011). If you agree, are you happy to delete it? Thanks. ] (]) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (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)


: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)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 04:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] (]) 05:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


== ] == == Deletion review for ] ==
] 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)


== New promotion approach ==
Hi ], I think that the article you edited ] may be not referenced, but it's notable. Please mark the subject as reviewed and let me work in it. You are open to help too! Have a great day. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 01:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::All ] '''must''' have appropriate references to ]. That is why we have the ] process, which I used to nominate it. All you have to do is find one single reliable source to attach to it. If that can't be found within the next week it will be deleted. I'm afraid this is one of the firmer rules around here, both for the integrity of the project and the protection of article subjects. I did do a quick search myself and came up empty. As someone with more of an interest in the subject you may have more luck with more specialized searches. Good luck. ] (]) 02:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


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)
== A cup of tea for you! ==


: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.
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
: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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
::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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Looks its been over 4 days...first day & first edit 14 October, 2014...second 15 October...third 16 October and fourth October 17. and today 18 october. can you please looks into this ] (]) 11:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
|}

Latest revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2025



tracks of previous discussions
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online


please stay in the top three tiers



XFD backlog



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

76

76




AfD

0

0

0

8

8








Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)




Case name

Closed




Palestine-Israel articles 5

23 Jan 2025


Clarification and Amendment requests




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


Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


−


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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)



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)



Administrators' newsletter – January 2025


News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).



 Administrator changes



added Sennecaster


readded 


removed 


 CheckUser changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


removed Ferret




[REDACTED]  Oversight changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


 Guideline and policy news




 Technical news



  • 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.


 Arbitration




 Miscellaneous






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)



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)



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)




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)



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)



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)



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)



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)



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)


			

					

								
							
					

				User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions
				
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
				
Add topic