Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Recent contributions of blocked users

Apologies in advance for the bulk of text. If you think this sort of question is better suited for a board for discussion, please let me know.

I wanted to pathetically apologize for taking you time on what I see was a very, very stupid G5. I do still have a question about User:Lcmedia and contributions of blocked users in general. I do admit I entirely missed G5 for banned and that indefinite block is different. Since bans are so incredibly rare in comparison to blocks and given out very specifically it took me a minute to realize how rare that tag actually is. Even so, I'm wondering what is done with recent contributions of users that are blocked. Generally I understand that "nothing" is the likely answer since many users would have a long contribution history and things can be manually checked without much complication. This case is different-- it was a new user created that was blocked (I'd assume) for COI posting and got away with a large number of edits in a short amount of time. On the Lloyd E. Rader, Sr. article, I put a normal PROD on after noticing the COI bit and don't like to slap CSD tags and I can't even think of why this article would have qualified. I then looked into the other articles this user had made and noticed a very distinct pattern of the same IPs coming in and making edits to the same set of articles in a short amount of time on an infrequent basis, and reviewing them all it was fairly obvious every article was a person or work related to a person that happens to work at a company that shares this username and those specific IPs were almost the sole contributors to all of them. By then I saw the indefinite block was on and figured that was that, thus CSD'd since in my fuzzy reading I assumed that meant this was spam.

New account creates an arguably COI article and is soon blocked for COI issues = ...alright. I assumed too much. So the question is what is done in these cases? Is a generic PROD the only method for the COI articles? I know even then it can only go if it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Still, the upshot is that COI accounts can be created, publish possible COI articles and then even after a valdalism/COI indefinite block the content stays on Wikipedia until a normal slow process cycles out their content? What if articles these COI users create are never noticed? It troubles me since it almost sounds like we're admitting that people can come in and create questionable articles that barely pass a possible A7 or G11 CSD, yet their advertising stays in the encyclopedia and their goals were likely accomplished regardless. I entirely understand that Wikipedia is about our guidelines and that they're very particular in the serious issues of blocking and content deletion, but that doesn't mean there might be odd cases with things that look like outside parties gaming the system happening that go by unnoticed. Even if this has nothing to do with me personally and these things might be common, since I spotted this originally I feel responsible to follow it all through 'til concerns are resolved. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lcmedia was blocked for a violation of the username policy, which does not confer any particular black mark on any contributions from the account. The articles should be assessed individually regardless of who created them, except in actual cases of banned user contributions, which can and should be removed on sight. If they are blatant spam or meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion they can be deleted that way. If they do not, a WP:PROD or deletion discussion is the way to go. I know it's a lot slower, but sometimes a spammer "screws up in reverse" and actually posts something that can be retained once the advertising language is removed from it. Also, as long as there is a deletion related tag on the article they haven't accomplished their goal of spamming Wikipedia because there is a big fat notice on the article saying it may be deleted as spam. Spamming is one of the more serious problems here, and rooting it out and removing it is neither a small nor an easy task, but we shouldn't automatically delete articles solely because the user who created them may have had a conflict of interest. If you have specific questions about speedy deletion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is pretty well trafficked by experienced users and there is always a lively discussion ongoing there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way I just put a PROD on Throwaway kids. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The name block might not have a more specific reason, but you're free to look at its history and see it only edited articles related to people that happen to work for a company with the same name as that user... that's why I said COI specifically but since I don't know if it was bot or user reported as a username violation I'm not sure how well researched it might have been. Ironically, that breach of username policy wasn't at all necessary since most all of the articles that user has edited are of substantial notability with excellent credentials. It may well be that those great articles were created under the same COI situation, but they're far far beyond the uncited stub like today's, thus a PROD Anyway, all seems well in this case since I've personally gone through every article that user or IPs with the exact same edit pattern on the exact same articles have contributed to significantly and I'm updating citations and sources to make sure they're in order. In this case the un-spam seems to qualify, and really rather that user come back under a neutral name so that they can add on more to their apparently extensive knowledge of poverty documentaries.
I hate CSD for the most part and hate how subjective A7 and G11 are, and I'll again go back to not actually tagging anything. I spend more time looking for articles to remove A7s from after witnessing a few strange things, and I'd much prefer to normal PROD and send a message to a newer user if things seem to be in good faith, assuming the article looks like it could be saved just be removing a link or two to a personal website or self-published press release. If it's not improved on from there it'll get filtered through generically after a week, or if the tag is removed without improvement then it's for AfD. I'm actually kind of proud about the anti-patrolling since it's resulted in a few good articles being created and updated and even someone who was particularly angry I removed their CSD suggestions has turned over to un-tagging. Thank you for the other info on that... it is useful. Bah, CSD is a curse. I saw a suggestion dug somewhere in the admin suggestion forum that CSD'd articles need to be looked at by two admins before a deletion, and despite being a good idea it was deemed impossible due to resources available. Yes, it's odd that I'm reading admin discussions for more information on deletion process, but since I almost exclusively patrol or discuss in XfDs I figure that's a better source of information. Well, better than generically going along with the just the basic guidelines or copying other editor's methods, including breathtaking philosophical AfD comments like "Delete, no google news". Slow deletion is good. So long as it's not harassment, direct solicitation or nonsensical gibberish that doesn't fit the most basic standards of "article" or even a stub, I'd rather it be done slowly for evaluation and good faith toward author or other user improvements.
Sorry for all rambling, but think of it as me wanting to make you job easier? :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I am the one who blocked Lcmedia, following a report at WP:UAA. They certainly did seem to be engaging in COI editing, but the block was just over the name. And please do keep looking for invalid A7 tags, it's a real problem and anything that reduces the backlog of admin work is always appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Shannar_riots_of_Sivakasi

Please advise me what I should do here: Talk:Anti-Shannar_riots_of_Sivakasi. I had made myself clear that I didn't added anything to the article. Still people are accusing me of vandalism. Axxn (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was adding new remarks to the talk page as you were leaving this. Hopefully the ip will agree to the mediation, but so far he seems to be stuck in a battleground mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. I saw this issue an ANI a couple of days ago. Since the IPs who have posted on Talk seem to have declared they will not follow dispute resolution, I think you may have sufficient grounds to lift the full protection and impose semi instead. Good-faith IPs should not be excluded, but I don't see any of those at present. ("We are not here to contribute to your stupid site which is run by freaks. I dont have to respect the rules of wikipedia"). EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I mainly did that to indicate to them the seriousness of the situation. I went ahead and lowered it to semi. Looks like this might be heading toward AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice you've volunteered to file an AfD if requested. Please think carefully about this, because the people who are finding problems with the article are behaving so badly that some might be blocked for disruptive editing. (Some kind of a web forum could be involved). If they become the main participants in an AfD, that could become its own fiasco. The fact that only registered users can file AfDs does have its benefits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why I specified that they had to come up with at least one reason based on policy. I'm just trying to mediate this thing, for all I know they may actually be right despite the awful way they are choosing to interact with others. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The beer was a good touch

I could use one. Don't miss the gallery at User:Noroton. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the trout

Thank you for applying this clue - I hope it takes. I, too, noticed he'd posted a note on the talk page of an editor involved in his topic ban, just in case the horse wasn't dead enough. I was tempted to post a similar avuncular suggestion myself, but didn't want to be accused of bullying by his supporter. Thanks again, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We can only hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Daina Gozan

I'm not sure if I'm asking in the right format, but you said the information I posted about her was improperly sourced. I'm not sure I follow. Everything was 100% accurate. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennief (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking, but are you perhaps having a little joke? I ask because the idea that a pornographic website called "Exploited Black Teens" and your say-so that this person was in these films falls into the realm of laughable as far as proper sourcing. Please make yourself aware of these policies:

The content policies exist in order to insure that Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and does not publish libelous information that could lead to Wikipedia being sued. Instead of edit warring you should comment on the article's talk page, and provide some proper sources to substantiate your claims. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chelmswood

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chelmswood. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmswood. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Does AniMate have a point?

Do you think it's time for an RFC/U regarding Ottava? Crafty (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I hope you're not about to ask me to put it together though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Francis - LA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Ed Boks

Contact a member of the OTRS team. I have no experience with communication between on-wiki admins and OTRS folks. I'm thinking user:Keegan is your go-to. In the meantime, please do not restore the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, yes, pluuuhhhleeeezzzeee do not restore this article. Should it come back, it will eventually be deleted by WP:OFFICE action, I'm trying to not get the Foundation or individual editors and administrators (read:you) into ongoing legal action. Keegan (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Beeblebrox, I sent you an email immediately after deleting the article with more information, in case you didn't receive it. Keegan (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I just don't check my Wikipedia email very often. After reading that I have no desire to touch that article again, but it has just been recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've notified the recreator and deleted it again. Stay hip. Keegan (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I came in behind you and salted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Go team. Keegan (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hope I'm editing this right. Boks has a very bad history. All of Los Angeles City Council made a motion demanding that he be fired, he was forced to resign, he was sued numerous times and lost every time, was fired from his last three jobs, increased killing in every shelter he's been... Everytime anyone says anything negative (which is often) he says "it's just a lazy employee, exgirlfriend, councilmember with an axe to grind." Excuses. The guy is broke. His threats of legal action carry no weight. The truth is never libel or defamation. I'd like to restore the page. People need to know this person's real history. He prefers to rewrite it himself by forging press releases and letters of recommendation. Thank you.LouisBrownstone (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you create a draft version as a user subpage and submit an unprotection request at WP:RFPP when it's ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility warning

In the interests of fairness, please consider yourself warned - you demonstrated rampant incivility in your recent interaction with user:Malleus Fatuorum. It is inappropriate to call an established user a troll, and highly inappropriate to refactor another user's comments in this way [1]. This dispute could have been easily resolved by ignoring or fully removing the posts with which you disagreed. Instead you have needlessly escalated the drama. Please refrain from this behavior in the future. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the "interest of fairness" I must say I fail to see how coming by someone's talk page and leaving a message that could serve no purpose whatsoever except to irritate them, and then posting another such message after the user has made it clear they don't wish to discuss it could be considered anything besides trolling. Malleus came here to try and rattle my cage and for nothing else, and I strongly stand by my stance that this was out and out trolling. That said, blanking it would have been the low-drama route as opposed to the "no troll food" thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say it? Yes, that was a bad idea and simply blanking it would have been much better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I note you haven't apologised for your actions—obviously you don't believe you've done anything wrong. Malleus pointed out that you were incorrect, and confused. There's nothing wrong with that—you clearly were confused. Then you edit his comments, and raise a complaint at ANI.
Its disingenuous, and not the behaviour one would expect of an administrator. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
No. I was not "confused". Malleus' post here [2] is what started the drama. Before that there was no drama, just a one-sentence remark on a talk page. We just see it differently as he apparently feels that Chillum making a light hearted remark on his own talk page was somehow provocative, which I see as a rather absurd stance, but frankly not worth all this bother. It's such a minor point I don't know why he decided to come here and make an issue out of it. Since there is still an active thread at ANI, I would prefer to keep this conversation there, I don't think I need any more "warnings" just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors posting comments about their drug abuse is not appropriate. I appreciate that you recognize blanking unwelcome comments is okay, while refactoring them is not. It's unfortunate that the dispute has escalated and that you took it to ANI without recognizing your role in instigating and inflaming the disruption. I encourage you to do what you can to diffuse it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There is already a thread at ANI and I would prefer to keep the conversation in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the relevant ANI thread. I guess I'm having a hard time finding it in the feast of trolling and drama mongering that's going on there? Anyway, I don't have any beef with you. Shit happens. But as admins it would be nice if you and your colleagues showed a little more tact and respect for good faith contributors. If you don't like what someone posts on your page, remove it. End of story. Anyway, take care and have a happy holiday season. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

acronym confusion

What does LGV mean? tedder (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. No worries. tedder (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

Be careful about deleting things. You accidentally deleted the next person on the list here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I realized that when I pasted it into the holding pen[3], but you were so quick it was already fixed when I came back, good save. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. I had it on my watchlist and I've found that I'm starting to get rather fast at it. Scarily fast. It's a result of clicking the watchlist button every two seconds. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not removing it"

I'm not removing it ok please don't edit my user and user talk page you have no business to do that. 75.141.100.115 75.141.100.115 —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

You are very quickly moving towards a block. Any user may send messages to any other user's talk page, and no user is allowed to remove a deletion discussion template from a page while the discussion is still underway. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to comment on the MfD. Am I allowed to suggest a block there? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I gave them a "last warning," if they vandalize one more time, I'd say report to ANI AIV. I probably shouldn't block them myself because I'm "involved." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That's why I was asking about suggesting it on the MfD. I'm involved now too. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
They just removed the mfd tag again, I reported them at WP:AIV Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
(sighs) How is it possible for one person to have so much stupidity in them as to ignore fifty million rapid-fire warnings? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll be honest, the moment I saw this a week ago I strongly suspected it would end up going this way, something about this smells of a deceptive returning user or other type of troll or sockpuppet account. Although it's usually safest not to assume malice when stupidity will suffice, I think in this case there really is something fishy going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Although it's usually safest not to assume malice when stupidity will suffice" (cackles) I'll have to remember that one, thanks. You've just brightened up my day. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could take credit for it, but here's where I pinched it from. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
(still grinning) Thanks anyway. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

← He's back... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just got told that. I got misinformation from somewhere clearly. I was told that removing warnings was against rules. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's considered better to archive them, and notices of active blocks and WP:SPI cases are the exception to the rule, but yep, they can be blanked if that's what the user wished to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Christ, now he's even removed your offer of mentorship... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And the MfD template again. I've given him a Level Four warning. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I filed a WP:AIV report at the same time. They were already blocked once for doing this, they obviously didn't get the message. I'm increasingly convinced that this is not a new user at all, but rather some kind of returning blocked user or other troll. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Query: how does one go about changing policy? Because I'm starting to get the impression that we need one regarding warnings. After this many warnings, he clearly hasn't read them. Shouldn't warnings stay on a talk page for, say, two months, for other editors to take into account that they're doing something wrong? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Would an SPI or Checkuser help at all? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The way the policy is worded, blanking the warnings is seen as an indication that they have been read and understood. Therefore if they continue the behavior they were warned about they can be blocked, regardless of whether there are any "fresh" warnings on the page. If you want to get that changed, a place to start would be Wikipedia talk:User page. As far as them being a returning user, I feel like they are, but I don't know who they might be, and I'm sure Checkuser would tell us fish CheckUser is not for fishing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Fishing? Secondly, what I meant was what if they're vandalising on multiple pages. They vandalise Page A. I revert and give them a Level One or Two warning. They delete the warning. They then vandalise Page B. Santa Claus reverts. Santa doesn't check their talk page history, so doesn't see the previous warning. They also give Level One or Two. If warnings stuck around for two months after they were posted, Santa would have given them the next warning up from mine. See what I mean? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I do see what you mean, and unfortunately it is an all-to-common side effect of the policy. In the case of ip addreses there is also greater leeway given because of the possibility of a shared ip, meaning more than one person could be responsible for the edits. The "fishing" thing is the standard CU response when you have a suspected sock, but don't know who they were previously. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to base my warning based on what their edit was and will sometimes skip straight to three if I think it's applicable. I don't honestly care if it's an IP or a registered user. What they did doesn't change. So, do you think that I should request a change in the policy? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The warnings should be issued on a case-by-case basis whether they are an ip or a registered user. What I meant is that the person you warn today may not be the same person who got the warning a month ago. Some ISPs re-assign ips so fast that by the time you leave the warning the person who made the edit has already moved ips. As far as getting the policy changed, if you feel strongly about it, and are ready for a long, long, discussion on the topic, go ahead. It's a pretty long standing policy, so I wouldn't count on it being very easy or quick . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No, thanks. Just screwed up my first MfD. Not eager on looking like a twit again. And why do IPs change? Wouldn't that make tracking criminals over the net really bloody hard? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It also makes stopping vandals and sockppeteers pretty difficult sometimes, but I'm afraid that question is out of my league, I'm not too well versed in tech matters like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
User page was deleted. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep. My thinking is that we should disengage with this user, take the page off watchlists etc. The point being that if other users notice the same problematic behaviors it may become clear to them that this is not just me and you talking, but Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, they may simply feel they are being bullied by more experienced users. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure? It seems to me that, given previous behaviour, he'll add it right back in. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Very probably they will. Usually once one "chapter" is over I let it go and let somebody else deal with it. If they keep editing disruptively somebody will notice, they'll get blocked again, etc. Personally I'm not into prolonged conflicts between specific users. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well. My watchlist has boomed recently, so it'll be good to have one page off of it at least. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

← Wow. That was just so effective. He's back already. See this and the next thread. And he's already been screwing around with the old and the new pages and the archived MfD discussion (now he shows up?!?!)... Should I put his new IP address on my watchlist? This is getting ridiculous. Both IPs have been blocked for a month but still... yeesh... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Bambifan... there's just... the only thing I can say... what the hell? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, what else can one say in the face of such utter insanity? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"I place alphabetti spaghetti on the heads of Chinese horses"? Just to fight fire with fire? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You and "How To"

Dear Beeblebrox, Thanks for your welcome message on my user wall. I've made contributions on Wiki but I am still a novice in some ways. :) I'm multilingual and sometimes create existing pages in different languages. I was wondering if you could tell me how I can link up the same article to one in a different language so that it shows up as a link on the left of the page. Apologies for the novice nomenclature. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace321 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are bots that do it for you. If not, find the domain name for the relevant Wikipedia (i.e. in the address bar, this one is "en.wikipedia", where en is the domain name) and add [[en:(((Alternate Language Article Name Here)))]] to the bottom of the article, below everything else. Replace "en" with the relevant domain. For example, with Tomb Raider: Underworld, it has [[ca:Tomb Raider: Underworld]] and [[ur:ٹومب رایڈر پاتال]] as alternate language links. Hope that answered your query. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolding of AfD closures

Hi, Beeblebrox. When AfDs are closed, the closing statement usually says '''Delete''' or '''Keep'''. Would you place the end bolding behind the decision instead of behind your signature? I just fixed this close of yours. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Regarding this, is the creator of the RFC/U CoM? (his own RFC/U?) Is the italicized text yours or CoM's? Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He created the RFC with the sentence "I think he's awesome!!!" I noticed from the ANI thread I just closed that it was a bluelink, so I clicked on it, and when I saw that I deleted it. The entire message is from me to CoM, italicized by Twinkle because I entered it into the comment box when adding the template. (I've never subscribed to to the idea of WP:TEMPLAR) . Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer.--Caspian blue 04:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hi Beeblebrox; hope you're doing alright. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've noticed that you seem to be getting stressed out on WP as of late, leading to little quarrels here and there. You have no obligation whatsoever to heed this advice — however, I think it'd be good for you to step back from the drama project namespace for a bit and focus on content. I have a few pages I plan on expanding, so if you happen to find random tropical storms interesting, I'd be happy to collaborate with you on a GA or three. Just a bit of friendly advice, since I don't want you to burn out. Best regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and have been avoiding participating in the ongoing drama the last day or two. I was over at ANI on an unrelated matter (the block of the kid who made the Auschwitz remark) and noticed those two threads, and they looked to me like they needed closing. I guess I thought of it as a "penance" for my earlier drama involvement. Next thing I know I also noticed the bad RFC page, and felt obligated to delete it. That's all the involvement I desire in these matters. (I'm assuming these are the ongoing actions you refer to) I was in a bad mood over things utterly unrelated to Wikipedia earlier this week, and I let it effect me more than I should have. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

template?

Is this a template? Yeah, it was easy- it's unfortunate the IP didn't have more warnings, but "preventing further disruption" is very obvious in that case. tedder (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it's the generic decline message, if you don't remove where it says {{subst:Decline reason here}} you get that. I usually use it in an obvious case like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
She's still at it. One more idiotic unblock request and I think it's time to revoke talk page editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw that. Brilliant. And love the amazing powers of communication; I'm guessing at the age based on familiarity with texting as a language. tedder (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
... yeah... can you... you know... not unblock her? Spelling like that enfuriates me at the best of times (I'm a proofreader in training, so it's to be expected). On an online encyclopaedia? That'll terrify me... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Username Notices

Sorry about that. I was told here that the template should be placed on these sorts of things (or, at least, that's how I read it). Sorry if I've caused any problems. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the land of contradictory advice from administrators. No disrespect to my esteemed colleague, but I follow the username policy pretty closely, and cases like these (including the one indicated in that message) are blocked on sight for having an organization name as their user name. There is no specific need for them to be warned first, they can always ask to be unblocked so they can request a username change. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry for causing trouble. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you were trying to be nice, and there's no real harm done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Michels Corporation

Hi. I just wanted to drop by, ask about your block of this user, and get your views on it. S/he hadn't made any edits yet that would indicate that they are tied to an organization. Best, TNXMan 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this ties in nicely with the above thread. I googled the name. It's a real company, and so I softblocked in order to indicate to them that names should not represent an organization. In cases where it's only implied by the name, I usually go with discussion, but when it's a 100% match with a real world organization, it's clearly in violation of policy. WP:SPAMNAME is pretty clear on this point: "Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! TNXMan 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly revert to the edit by SomeGuy1221

Per request, the report of WP harassment by GameOn for privacy reasons has been sent to the arbitration board via email. As as result of this correspondence the history page of the article was blanked as a courtesy, which Swedish WP editor Gameon reverted. There will be no further discussion about the deleted page.

Could you please kindly revert to the version by SomeGuy1221. That Gameon reverted this is further evidence of the matter under investigation at the arbitration board. Mjsullus (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Please revert the edit Thanks!

But there is a difference, between what Someguy122 put up and GemeOn reverted. As a courtesy it was put up and as a adversarial discourtesy it was removed. Could you revert it, since you can? There is no discussion about the AfD but there is about harassment in the AdF process, and a complaint sent to the arb com, which if you are interested can be requested. The email address is on the arb com page. For this reason, and for the privacy of the matter the page was blanked. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. Mjsullus (talk)

No, I think I'll stay out of this. If ArbCom feels the page needs to be reverted they are more than able to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV follow-up

You no doubt missed my query at AIV as it was removed as soon as I blocked 75.141.100.115 (talk · contribs), but what talk page header is the IP not allowed to remove? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive I'm interpreting this correctly, but here's what I was thinking of (fromWP:BLANKING, emphasis added by me):

Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about e.g. blocks and sockpuppetry with other users.

They had {whois|[[Charter Communications]]}} and {{repeatvandal}} on the page and removed them repeatedly in favor of their weird formatting scheme. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually what WP:BLANKING says is "shared IP header templates" ... of which, {{whois}} is not (by design [4]) a Category:Shared IP header templates. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, live and learn. User now seems to be having some trouble asking to be unblocked. I doubt they want to hear from me since they blank every message I leave, usually without responding, maybe you could try explaining it to them... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your time. I am sorry if I came across as being snotty, as that was not my intention at all (since I had already blocked the IP, I really just wanted to make sure I was not missing something else). Thanks again, — Kralizec! (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't seem snotty at all, was a perfectly fair question. By the way, there is now an ANI thread about this. Apparently they are back again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Page/talk page deletion

You deleted a page, in which a hangon tag had been placed, with appropriate method then following on the talk page (which you also speedily deleted) of why there should be a listing in wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts to do things rapidly, but less than 10 minutes elapsed between the tag of the page and the deletion, despite the hangon tag that was placed on the page. I think the issue of whether to include it has merit, especially considering the other mentioned organization in the referring article has its own article. Sapphiremind (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because a hang-on is on the page doesn't mean it won't be massacred if it's against policy. Not having seen the article in question, I can't comment further. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, it's just the justification for the deletion was that it wasn't demonstrated why it was significant enough to have an article about it. I was providing said documentation, including referring pages from wikipedia, it just took me a little time to get it! Sapphiremind (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to One World One Night.The hangon tag is a suggestion, not a guarantee. I read the hangon reasoning on the talk page and found it unconvincing. Although not an actual policy, many Wikipedians do not accept the argument that other similar articles mere existence is in and of itself a reason to create or retain an article. You may want to try creating a user subpage in order to construct a new draft of this article with much less risk of speedy deletion. The main problem is that you did not provide any reliable sources to verify the article's content and establish the subject's notability. Note that Wikipedia pages can't be used as references for other Wikipedia articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You also didn't give me much of a chance to - but I will take your suggestion and do it as a subpage. Allowing time for discussion, references or thought might be more useful to you in the future, especially when, as you say, certain things are not actual policy. Thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphiremind (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Useful hint: provide at least one reliable source in the article when you make it. Also, before you re-submit it to the mainspace, ask for a review of it to see if it's okay and what needs improving. Not sure where to send you for that though, sorry. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I didn't have the page constructed beforehand, I'll be sure to remedy that for the next attempt. Sapphiremind (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, though I generally think that new users shouldn't try to create a page until they're more used to things around here. I'm nine months in and I still haven't done one (except that one time I created the coding and writing for the page offline, went online to find out it already existed and pasted my version over it). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged © violations on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the facebook page is a copy of the wikipedia articles. I have been editing ANTM articles for a coupleof years and have been working on this page from the beginning. the facebook page contains some of my edits. and if you look at the history you will see that that page represents a particular snapshot of the wiki article, which was the result of many revised edits. On top of that, it is following a format that has been used in wikipedia articles for years, which is not something the producer's of ANTM are likely to do. The person claiming © violation is very likely intentionally causing mischeif, and knows full well that there is no real © violation. ... Misty Willows talk 09:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While I think you are right about the facebook page being a copy of the WP article, and not the other way around, I think you are dead wrong about the motivations of the user who tagged it. It was an innocent mistake, and I have left them a message explaining how to properly evaluate potential copyvios. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok I went back and looked at his contribs, I shouldn't have made that assumption. It's just that I have seen so many people fucking with ANTM pages, that I start to "assume bad faith". I'm sorry for the accusation, and will try to "assume good faith" from now on. ... Misty Willows talk 03:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

misc.

Axmann8 was an especially vicious user, with Nazi stuff on his page (his username references Hitler also), and was unrepentent as recently as 3 days ago. He also admitted [5] to having socked via an IP for the last 5 months, i.e. since a month or two after he was indef'd. As I recall, he was editing ONLY political articles, so I don't know what he would work on if he didn't do that. Maybe his IP was working on different topics. And maybe he could share that IP with an admin so his claim could be checked out. One other oddity is the recent appearance of another right-wing sock currently called User:MoonHoaxBat. There may well be no connection between these two users, but who knows? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the name reference Hitler? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It's the "8" at the end, which was used as a symbol by the Hitler Youth. I think it kind of combined A and H stylistically. Seems to me there was something about the rest of the name too, but I can't recall it now. That was in March. He also claimed to be from Indiana. I don't necessarily think he's the same as MoonBat is. I kind of doubt it, actually. But there are questions to be answered about the both of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The eight is offensive now? Well, colour me Nazi, because one of my old usernames had an eight in it. Regardless of what he was like (and I wouldn't know), I think we'll assume good faith on the eight. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
And now I can't find the reference. Be that as it may, there is no "good faith" to be assumed regarding Axmann8. He was a neo-Nazi and proud of it. (A "skinhead", actually.) But if he has reformed himself, then maybe someone would be willing to mentor him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I wouldn't be able to comment on him himself, but without proof, I think we should assume that the name itself has no connotations. And sorry if I sounded rude or antagonistic in my previous comment. I just reread it and I think I came off badly. Sorry. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I took no rudeness from your comments. Citations are always needed. I don't think I dreamed it, I'm fairly certain it was a topic of discussion last spring. But since I can't find it, at the moment it's irrelevant. He was blaming everyone else for his troubles just a few days ago and now he says he's ready to follow the rules. Maybe he deserves a chance. But not blindly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've never been one for forgiving consistent vandals easily. The one time I've been involved in a subject like this before, I recommended a probation, which I've seen given to others and was eventually given to that user. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how probation will get Bugs to stop, but something must be done to stop him. tedder (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that you're an administrator, I'm going to presume that was firmly tongue-in-cheek and you're not a sock of Axmann8 pursuing vengeance against Bugs again. xD If I'm wrong, please say so. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm an admin, I'm not a sock, but a little vengeance against Bugs never hurt anyone (yes, tongue in cheek) tedder (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first item is that he named himself for Artur Axmann, the leader of the Hitler Youth during WWII. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And the other part is this: [6] Apparently 88 stands for HH, the 8th letter of the alphabet, hence 88 means "Heil Hitler". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for the verification. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It would have been easier if I had started with "Axmann" instead of "8", as there are a lot of "8's" out there. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. And as I said, even if you took no offence for it, I'm sorry if I seemed snarky and/or rude. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Believe me Bugs, this is not a decision I wold make lightly, which is why I've asked for input on it. Since he was blocked more or less a result of an ANI discussion, I think that might be the right venue to discuss his unblocking, rather than just one admin handling it, but I thought I'd get some quick input before delving into "dramaland." As you can see from my comments when I placed his request on hold, I am no fan of neonazis myself, and I have asked him to consider changing his name. In my short tenure as an admin, I am finding that dealing with unblock requests is an interesting area, but it's certainly not the easiest of admin tasks. It's hard to judge the sincerity of a person's remorse when you can't see their face, so sometimes unblocking and letting them either prove they were sincere or prove they were lying is the best course. Given this users extensive block log I don't have particularly high hopes. By the way, judging from postings at his mentor's page the ip he's been using is User:75.186.104.169. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that you already figured that last bit out back in September. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
What I find interesting is that he appeared to start off well on Wikipedia (see Xeno's WikiLove thing near the bottom). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I recall thinking at the time that there was maybe some hope for the guy, because he was obviously young and hadn't taken the time to consider other points of view. I recall he was kind of "egged on" by a thoroughly nasty character called CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who then abandoned Axmann8 when the latter was being discussed for indef block and ANI. CENSEI himself was indef'd soon afterward. The obvious conclusion one might draw is that maybe they were the same guy, but I didn't quite get that vibe (which doesn't prove anything, though.) Axmann8's problems were compounded by an impostor creating fake socks of Axmann8 and trying to get him permanently banned, until it became clear that it wasn't him. What a bizarre time that was, though. That was around May, I think. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've only become involved in this sort of thing in the last month. It sounds chaotic though. And how exactly was he egged on? I don't care that he was (it was his choice to go along with it), but exactly how was he? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have to search for details, and I don't really have the stomach for it right now. If someone wants to let Axmann8 back under close supervision, maybe it's worth a try. I do recall specifically that they claimed to have actually talked on the phone offline. CENSEI offered his verbal support - on the phone, anyway. But when Axmann8 was being put up for indef block, CENSEI disappeared. I could imagine his call to Axmann8 going something like, "I weep for you... I deeply sympathize." That whole episode was way too soap-opera-ish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother going out of your way to provide diffs if they're not needed for anything other than sating my curiousity. And a soap opera? Do not want. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Red and Anarchist Skin Heads, aka RASH

Something that is often missing from discussions of skinheads (especially in the states) is that the vast majority of them are not, and never were, neonazis. While I was never personally affiliated with either of the organizations whose logos you see here, I can attest that they always had more members than any nazi skin crews. They had better parties too: better bands, free beer and better looking women. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For a hot second there I thought you were going to say "better beer and free women." :) Although the skinhead look doesn't really work for most women. That one alien in the first Star Trek film in the late 1970s would be a notable exception. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of a female friend, "Did the men look any better? Or was that why the beer was free?" And seriously? You liked the Deltan? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See, the nazi dudes mostly had girlfriends that had also shaved their heads or had a "Chelsea cut" which was shaved on top but had tufts of hair behind the ears, so you couldn't tell they were baldheads if they had a hat on. The other skins had more open minds on the matter, and dated all sorts of girls. Although of course time and "beer goggles" may be contributing factors to this perception. There was one female nazi skin I recall who looked meaner than any man I ever met. Lived right in an integrated neighborhood and walked the streets with a large hickory cane that she was more than willing to slap you up the side of the head with. Oh but this old timer does ramble on... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the off-topicness. Probably my fault. Will shut up now. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it was entirely mutual. Or we could just blame Bugs. He's used to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody messed with that one babe, not with a custom-made shillelagh in her hand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

75.186.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which you asked about today, I had deduced this past Sept. 11th might be Axmann8's IP sock, and my question to him was followed-on immediately by another (apparently unrelated) user who is a notorious sockpuppeteer, although I didn't realize it at the time - and then I promptly forgot about it and moved on to other things, but the IP is still on my watchlist. That little exchange is still on 75.186.104.169's talk page if you want to read it. The IP is based in Indiana, which squares with where Axmann8 said he was from. So then you might want to look at the quality of 75.186.104.169's contributions and see if there's a glimmer of reforming himself (aside from the block evasion, of course)... and it looks like he's doing nothing but editing political articles, so I don't know what else he would be working on if he was allowed back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I have declined Axmann8's unblock and blocked the ip. I put a lot of thought into this, and tried very, very hard to be fair, but his promises felt hollow, like he was just trying to do what was needed to regain editing privileges whether he understood or agreed with the reasons he was blocked or not. The ip edits make it clear he is unwilling/unable to self-ban from politically sensitive topics. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

We had an edit conflict, don't know why your stuff got deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, you not only blanked my comment, but several others further up in the conversation.[7] How exactly could an edit conflict have done that? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There were ones higher on the page, but if you check the time stamps looks like they were the last three added.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure how that could have happened unless Former IP copy pasted his entire "version" of the page instead of just adding his comments at the bottom. A mistake possibly, but not a simple edit conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Like I say, I don't exactly know. I was surprised myself, and was just about to self revert when I got your final demand letter. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be an edit conflict issue. If I make comment and get into an edit conflict with SineBot leaving a signature behind, I then have to look at the diffs and re-add SineBot's contribution back in because it doesn't appear in the upper window. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fetcch Talk

Sorry I did not know it was somewhgere else. I put it back the way it wasToughdude (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You can still access the old talk from the links in the archive box at the top of the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Alastair McIntosh's talk page.
Message added 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made a comment regarding the block. Would appreciate your comment. LouriePieterse 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben Zion Tavger

I have received permission from the family to publish this article in Wikipedia; therefore, I request to put back the article.אט (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need to follow the procedure outlined at donating copyrighted material before re-posting. Even if the copyright is released, the text will need heavy editing in order to conform to Wikipedia's core policies, specifically that it must be based on reliable sources, not self published sources and must maintain the neutral point of view expected of an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Talk:Salmon#Aquaculture/commercial fish topics.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I stole a star from someone's barn. Hide it from the cops until I get back.

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your dedicated work on WP:RPP, I award you this shiny silver barnstar! Editors tend to take admins for granted, you can tag an article or report a vandal and trust that an admin will get to it, because there's always an admin ready to take care of the messes we make. I think this is especially true of you. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This may sound weird, but I actually enjoy evaluating requests for page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Prof. Tavger, a Jewish-Russian physicist

The article of whom, was removed on 8th, Nov. a. What was the reason for removing it ? afterall, a distinguished physicist ! I tried to see any discussion or history, but found none. b. Can I have the last version, so I might want to improve it ? Thanks, BentzyCo (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see the exact text of the article, you can look at the page it was copied from, which is at [8]. There was no discussion of it's deletion because there is no need to discuss removing a blatant copyright violation. See the thread two sections above this one for more details on what this would need to be re-posted to Wikipedia as an article. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There seem to be two main issues: 1. legal, which, following what the one who answered you says, is solvable (but nothing has been done, yet). 2. issues of proper editing. I'm familiar with that sort of writing, but the scientific figure deserves more, even if he himslef, has blended in the local community in his place, in his last period of life. However, personal changes should be put aside when one's coming to write on his significant virtues and contributions, social and scientific. Since this community is involved, politically in Israel, in a controversial way, this is becoming delicate, and needs good sense of objectiveness. I'll start with his basic biography and scientific activity, which are quite documented, and then see. By the way, I've tackled with similar writing problem, in his hebrew version, seemingly by the same source (?). BentzyCo (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message

Thanks for welcoming me. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from MrTenzin

Hello Beeblebrox, I'm responding to your decision on deleting Tenzin Phuntsog. I myself 'Tenzin Phuntsog' under the user MrTenzin first created that entry and would like it taken down, there is only one author as far as I understand thus far, unless I'm wrong by wikipedia standards. Please reconsider deleting the entry. My failed attempts to delete that entry, show my lack of understanding working within wikipedia standards/framework and as you can see, have been having a hard time getting the entry it taken down properly. I'm reattempting to delete the entry under the original login "MrTenzin" if this isnt sufficient what other ways can I go abouts confirming that "I" the author would like to delete that entry?

MrTenzin MrTenzin (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.85.181 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Other users have edited the article in the time since it was created, it therefore cannot be deleted at the author's request. Consider proposed deletion or initiating an deletion discussion as alternatives. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, thanks for enlightening me, I will attempt to make an entry for proposed deletion. I will try again. Best-TenzinMrTenzin (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

weird

{{adminhelp}} Talk:Baudelaire family is showing up in the category of "unspecified pages for speedy deletion" and I can't figure out why, there's no CSD tag on the page. Anyone know what's going on? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but in most of those cases a dummy edit will fix it. It's not appearing in the cat anymore. Tim Song (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I still have no clue as to why it happened in the first place, but that works... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Found the cause: the page used to transclude Talk:Baudelaire family/Comments, which was tagged with a {{db}} and deleted. But since the {{db}} tag was transcluded, the page itself was included in the cat as well. When the transcluded page was deleted, the cat's cache was apparently not updated. Hence the inaccurate listing. Tim Song (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh. I figured it must have had something to do with that, since that was the only recent edit, but I didn't catch that they had actually transcluded as opposed to copy/pasting. Have you ever considered WP:RFA? You seem to have some pretty good skills, and we need more admins with a helpful streak. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a few hours I wondered why Tim was not an admin as well. =) As for the problem above that is caused by the job queue. If a transcluded page is deleted which was previously speedy tagged without noinclude-tags, the server will not change the effects on the page it was transcluded on until hours or maybe even days later when the server recreates the page from wikicode. If you null edit the page as Tim did, it will process the page again immediately and thus remove such transclusions. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I might consider an RFA later but not now - perhaps after Christmas; someone actually asked me about it a couple weeks ago. I only became active in August so I would like to wait for a while. Besides, I'm not particularly proud of a number of my earlier CSD tags and some of my earlier AfD noms and comments - my views have changed a lot over time, but I'd imagine that people at RFA would want some proof. Tim Song (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well keep up the good work anyway! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try :) Tim Song (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bush

i am talking on the talk page and Grunge has been on it for months till some guy started changing it. Megabar09 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see it now, the reason I didn't notice is because of the same thing that took me a moment to notice your reply here, new talk threads should go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lcmedia

I understand you blocked my user name. Was there a reason for that? I tried to reach you through Wikipedia, but I couldn't post through my account. I sent you an email, but wasn't sure if you would get it, so I created a new user account to leave you a message. Can you please advise? I have used that user name for nearly 15 years on every web account I have. It's also the name that I use as a producer (it's short for "Lichtensstein creative media").

You can post something, but likely I wont see it as I am not checking my talk page regularly, but you can reach me at xxxxxx@gmail.com [Email address removed by tempaccount2009 on 11-16-09]

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

BL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempaccount2009 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason the account is blocked is explained in the blocking notice at User talk:Lcmedia. As you explained in your message, the name represents a business. That is a violation of our username policy. Usernames should represent individuals not businesses. You should still be able to edit the Lcmedia talk page if you wish to request an unblock and a new username. Since you say it may be a while till you see this and my talk page is fairly active, I'll repost this at your talk pages. Beeblebrox ([[U

ser talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 16:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Beeblebrox: Thanks for getting back to me. I wasn't sure what you were proposing in your email. Are you saying that if I ask, you will unblock my account with a new username? If so let me know, as that would be fine. Let me know. If not, what are you proposing?

Thanks and best,

BL

Yes, that is what I am saying, although normally a different admin will review an unblock request. You should log in as Lcmedia, and post {{unblock|your reason here}} with an explanation of your proposed new name in place of "your reason here". Alternately, you could simply go to WP:CHU with the account you are using now and have it's name changed to whatever name you would like. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock| I am writing regarding my user name LCMEDIA and user account, which was blocked. I am requesting that the account be unblocked, and that the account name be changed to BLNYNY, if that is available. The use of LCMEDIA was not intended as a corporate moniker; it is the user name I have used for 15 years on the Internet, and, along with "LCM," is an informal nickname for my Peabody Award-winning media production company, Lichtenstein Creative Media, Inc. If possible, I would very much like to continue using it; it not, I can switch it. I am leaving this note through a temporary user account, which will be deleted once this is resolved - the blocking doesn't allow me to leave talk notes through LCMEDIA. Thank you.})

  • Ok, let's try that again, you need to log in as Lcmedia and post an unblock request on Lcmedia's talk page. The "nowiki" tags were included in my message so that it would not appear I myself was requesting an unblock, you should use it as it appears on this page, not in the edit window. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try it again. Thanks. --Tempaccount2009 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


My user page

Can you unprotect my user page? I'd rather have the vandalism there than on my talk page. --NE2 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


False Accusation of Sockpuppetry

I would like to remove the protection tag ant to re-edit the Alpha Kappa Rho article (now protected but article is now very inaccurate) the user Eaglestorm has been re editing it with uneccesary wrong information causing the protection tag due to his HATRED AND PERSONAL feelings that Eaglestorm cant get over with AGAINST the said fraternity which is very biased and unprofessional and very IMMATURE in the wikipedia community where knowledge is supposed to be free... thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lytescrybe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding resulting from a request to have a page semi-protected. I would appreciate it if I could communicate with you via email in order to expedite the process of, hopefully, getting the page protected AND removing me from the sockpuppet investigation, including the category templates you placed on my user page!Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The protection issue has already been addressed twice at WP:RPP, so I have no interest in re-opening it now. You can email me with your concerns about the spi if you would like. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
User Intelligencia has given me a better explanation of why the request for semi-protection is denied by sending me an example of severe vandalism. From that example, I understand that the what I thought was severe does not rise to the level of the example given. I am sorry, but I do not know how to send an email directly through Wiki. Am I correct in my limited understanding that now that you have accused me of being a sock puppet, the process is already in motion and I must wait for determination? I would hope you would, at the least, admit that the basis of your accusation was ill founded. This is exemplified by the lack of thoroughness in your checking the history of the edit history. Please tell me, since you are part of the administration team, how does a user lodge a complaint against an administrator? Thank you.Clftruthseeking (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As an administrator, I could have taken action myself and blocked the both of you, but because I was not 100% sure, I filed the spi case instead so that other admins could look into the case and make a determination. There are numerous forms of dispute resolution you can pursue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Especially as an administrator, you should be doubly careful with such an accusation. You could have blocked both users, sure, that is a lot of power to wield. I'm glad you had it checked. Now that the case is closed and your accusation proven incorrect, do I remove the templates from my user page? Or, is that up to some other administrator?Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
With the case closed, you are perfectly free to remove the tag. I'd like to reiterate that this was just a suspicion of socking, which is why I opened a case to have it checked out by users who specialize in investigating this sort of thing. Given that, I would appreciate it if you would also remove the statement that I "misused my administrative powers" (I didn't actually use them at all in this matter) from your user page as well, but that is up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation regarding removal of the templates. What happens with the categories? Can I remove those too? Interesting that you would now be so detail oriented regarding the use of your "powers". You did not perform any due diligence to justify your suspicion and jumped to conclusions. You showed lack of judgement concerning your administrative responsibility to users of the Wiki. Have you ever been falsely accused of anything? Not a good experience. You have yet to take responsibility for your actions and continue to act (based on your responses) as if it were a harmless act. Such an accusation, falsely placed is never harmless. Maybe you did not use your administrative "powers" but as an administrator, you should have been more thorough prior to accusation. Someone with greater power needs to exercise greater discretion and diligence. Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And anyone can make a mistake. Maybe he did check everything and still happened to come to the sockpuppet conclusion. Just because someone makes a mistake, it's no reason to bite them. Hit them with a trout if you must, but admins got to where they are for a reason. If it was me who was accused, I'd be annoyed and worried at first, but I'd make my statements, ask for Checkuser if need be and brush it all under the carpet with the accuser afterwards, spreading a little WikiLove in the process. You would be wise to to the same before things get tense. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Though I understand your position, though I cannot appreciate your coming to an administrator's rescue. I am trying to address a disregard for thoroughness. Or, are you a sock puppet of Beeblebrox? Should I start an SPI? It took me less than a minute to determine that you are not the same people and I have no administrative responsibilities, nor admin tools at my disposal. I did give my "official" explanation citing half a dozen occurrences refuting "B" claims. . I did ask for check user, immediately. I've been using the Wiki for all of about 6 months and am surprised at the bullying attitudes many of those who have been around for awhile. What are you intimating with "You would be wise to to the same before things get tense."? Is that a threat in the disguise of "spreading WikiLove"? What's that all about? Please show me where the "trout" is, fast! Clftruthseeking (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I come to the defence of all, for I am Batman Bruce Wayne. Seriously, though, Beeblebrox being an admin had nothing to do with it. And no, it wasn't a threat. I was merely stating that, if left to fester, hostility (further hostility?) could rise between you two and interfere with Wikipedia's running in the long-term. I care not for petty squabbles as long as they don't interfere with Wikipedia. The problem is, if left unchecked, all petty squabbles can grow and interfere with the project, therefore I care about the petty squabbles and try to act as a sort of mediator. As you can see, I'm only just starting out. As for the trout, here's the instructions on how and where to use it. Also, start an SPI if you want. It would be gigglesome. I'd comment a bit more, but I think I might be about to fall asleep, so I want to save the page before I do. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we just put this conversation to bed already? I did not intend to bully you, I'm sorry if you felt you were bullied. I posted the report and let others make the determination, and refrained from arguing with either of you or badgering you over your responses. The report was closed with a determination of "unlikely" so there's really not anything left to discuss.Wiki-love coming your way in a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

{{pint}}

That's all it took. I'll forego the trout. Thanks also to Thejadefalcon for enough levity to break mood. You are a better admin already... I can feel it. Clftruthseeking (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Bah! I doubt that! I just did the same thing as Beeblebrox here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
At least yours was an admitted sock puppet. That trout is starting to look good again. Clftruthseeking (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


I wouldn't forgive so easily. "Thejadefalcon" might be a sockpuppet of Beeblebrox! Maybe Beeblebrox is using the account Thejadefalcon as a sockpuppet to manipulate you and get out of the argument with out losing face. Have you thought about that Clftruthseeking? Okay, okay, folks, I am just kidding! I had to put some salt in the would since I was involved. Peace out, chil-lax, everything works out, everyone is stronger and better for all of this... Huo Xin (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit you had me going for a second there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Good that was my intent! It is not fun to be innocent and be accused of something that I am not a part of. Who do you think I am? O.J? George Bush? Rodney King? Bernie Madoff? All kidding aside, and personally speaking, I was once accused of something I did not do and my personal life and involvement with the Chinese martial arts suffered because of this. It took years of rebuilding my reputation as well as my abilities and skills. I had to deal with a heavy dose of depression, repressed anger, and all of it really affected my health and self confidence. Over time, I actually thought I was finally over it mentally and physically - that was until I was accused of sock puppetry in something that I love doing - sharing information about the Chinese Martial Arts in the Wikipedia. Maybe it was my way of personal self therapy, but imagine how I felt when I saw that tag. That is why I also wish that before such accusation tags be posted, a bit more research into the issue to obtain factual evidence and some communication be given before the tag gets published. I also wish that the admin who posts it, removes it and adds an apology entry. Too me, that is being what I call a responsible wikipedia administrator. Please don't misunderstand me, I do believe that you (Beeblebrox) is trying to do your best and we all sincerely appreciate your efforts, but hopefully all of this will generate some better policy and guidelines. Hmmm... maybe I should direct this post to Thejadefalcon, well I guess it doesn't matter since you two are the same person...  ;) Huo Xin (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: User talk:MortonFC66

that's true, i'm using wikipedia's built in tools for firefox which is automatically doing it all Alan - talk 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I'm pretty new to this and you were kind enough to leave a welcome message on my profile. I was wondering if you could help explain how one can submit an article for protection. Also, how can one report disruptive users (i.e. those who vandalise articles)? Many thanks. Grace321 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are dedicated forums for each of these issues. Requests for page protection, and administrator intervention against vandalism, locally referred to as RPP and AIV. Page protection is something we don't actually want to do if it's not needed, as it is somewhat contrary to the idea of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so be prepared to meet a fairly high bar. The page's history must show extraordinarily high levels of recent and sustained vandalism, or an ongoing edit war. Like many things here, there is not an explicit line, requests are judged on a case-by-case basis, and most admins are more willing to protect biographies of living persons than other articles, but generally if a page is seeing less than four or five instances a day of vandalism, it won't be protected. Standards an AIV are more fluid, some of the worst kinds of vandals will be blocked for only one instance of vandalsim, but usually you must show a pattern of recent and ongoing disruption. More complicated abuses of Wikipedia that do not fall under the category of simple vandalism are reported at the administrator incident noticeboard. Problems with incivility can be reported at Wikiquette alerts, which is a non-binding form of dispute resolution that attempts to educate users on Wikipedia's civility policy without the threat of a block. If you find yourself getting into vandalism fighting, you might want to consider activating twinkle or huggle, which are automated tools that make reverting vandalism, reporting abuse, and deletion nominations much easier. I know that was a mouthful and a little more than what you asked, but I thought I'd try to cover all the bases for you. If you have any more questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, lots of info but very useful. I'm catching on. :) Is there a way I can save the pages you mentioned as a reference? I have used the request for page protection before and did not get permission to semi-protect the page. My request was for a section of an article that dealt with genocide and that was vandalised quite a few times (but not more than 4x/day merely b/c the changes were not reverted back as many times). I do agree that wiki should be open to edits to as many (rational) people as possible but I also think that serious topics such as genocide do warrant stricter rules (at least such as those applied to bio's of living persons). In this instance, I did not challenge the decline for semi-protection but merely reverted the comments myself. However, I do wish that more attention and stricter rules are applied to such serious topics. Grace321 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want handy links to those pages, you can copy this to your user or talk pages: [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]and [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] You could also add them to your watchlist if you wish to be updated when changes are made. There are also shortcut links you can use, like these: WP:RPP for page protection or WP:AIV for vandal reporting. Simply type these shortcuts into the search bar and you will be taken to those pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I did what you asked

I made a draft pace and reposted my request for unprotection --Łoshɢooþii T.C. 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maynassar article copies

I think that this is a bad expanded rationale. "per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR" is disrespectful to the community discussion. per SNOW should be used more judiciously. per IAR should be used only where immediate deletion is important, or for some extraordinary reason. Both are reasons to not follow normal process. In this case, the best rationale is "per consensus". In the debate, community consensus was without doubt. You should treat community consensus as paramount. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I did do that, that was only meant to explain the early close, I'll tweak the wording to clarify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that it was closed a little early. I was a bit confused. I believe that SNOW is well accepted as an acceptable reason to close early. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking Brazil

Good afternoon, Beeblebox! Well, you've blocked article Brazil due to an edit war. The editor who caused that has been just now blocked for acting on the same way in another article.[9][10]

The reason was not only edit warring, but also for imposing his POV and disruptive behavior.[11]

Could you be kind and unblock Brazil now that the troublesome editor has been blocked? Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible for only one editor to be involved in an edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It happened because he was erasing sourced information without bothering to discuss it first with other editors. So, what is needed to unblock it? --Lecen (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the disputes still ongoing on the talk page need to be resolved. The protection will expire on Monday anyway, you can use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page for any edits you would like to make before then. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
So far, the score in the talk page is 4x1 where 4 are me and other 3 editors and 1 the editor who was blocked. When do you believe we could consider the discussion as "over" and "settled"? --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That talk page is a bit WP:TLDR, but it looks like there are still several active discussions about disputed material. You can post an unprotection request at WP:RFPP if you wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the talk page may look scary due to its size, it has only one active discussion at the present moment. But I will wait a couple of days to see if any other editor will say something. In all cases, I would like to thank you for your help, I really apreciated. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Flood bridge.jpg

It looks remarkably similar to a photo in this article, which is apprently copyrighted by "PA". Jolly Ω Janner 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Random curiosity

Yeah, I figured that might be an issue, if I left it there. I was in a mass-edit mode, so I didn't pay too much attention to that at the time. Now I know that at least one person watches for fighy things here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

bunching problem

{{helpme}}

User:Tim Song worked his magic. m.o.p 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Takbir

Tx for the semiprotect.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully this will blow over in a week or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Both the vandalism, and the reason for interest in what that phrase means ...--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi

Sorry for misuse of the template. I'm considering just reverting to the version that existed prior to Sultaan2's edits. It's only a stub, but at least it's not a copyright infringement. Can I do that, or should I allow you (or another admin) to do so? I'm not sure if the history should be expunged as well, or whether it is acceptable to keep infringing material in the history. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Eew. Just noticed that that version declares him the legally-decreed Crown Prince and Deputy ruler of Ras Al Khaimah. Even that much may be a BLP issue; his status as Crown Prince appears to be tenuous at best. Basically, the whole page is either copyright violation, BLP violation or both... —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Invitation

Bye. Do you like to intervine again here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking_policy#Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy ? --Mashra (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. As I mentioned before, there is already a project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator that is looking into this sort of thing.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the interesting questions that you posed at my RfA, and thanks for the words in my defence too! I expected some of my less guarded moments to come under scrutiny, but there were no overly scary skeletons hiding in my history. Fences&Windows 22:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting through the gauntlet! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:StephenPaternoster and User:Anglo-Saxon1

Hello Beeblebrox. I notice you put the indef tag on StephenPaternoster (talk · contribs)'s userpage. I think he is editing as Anglo-Saxon1 (talk · contribs) as well.

This user is editing the pretty much the same type of 'Saxon-Viking' articles, particularly Bagsecg. He refuses to cite any references, despite having been asked numerous times. He also blanks his and other user's talkpages. It is pretty much the same stuff which StephenPaternoster pulled. User:86.151.62.191 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly tied to StephenPaternoster. His last three edits were undoing reversions of edits by Anglo-Saxon1 (who had refused to cite any sources). And to top it off, there's this edit which is practically an admission: [12]. Can you do something about Anglo-Saxon1?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I think a full WP:SPI report and CheckUser would be a better route than unilateral action by me. I was only involved in handling his unblock requests and subsequent disruption on his user page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks Beeblebrox. I'll do that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I saw (and agreed with) your comment on Retrograde force at WT:CSD#Retrograde force. I thought you might like to know that the original creator has removed the PROD tags. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I already had made up my mind that if that happened we would promptly move on. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrograde force. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

please protect from edit war

Hi Zapphod--

Sorry to bother you, that guy Darren is once again engaging in an editing war on the Cytherea page. Rather than engage him, would you please protect the page again? I can't believe he started it again, but apparently you have to be an administrator to block a page--at least I can't figure out how to do it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.157.9 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys need to pursue some form of dispute resolution to settle this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of disagreement

I just looked at that triangle on your page: it's the most awesome thing I've ever seen. It is so rare for anyone ever to rise above the fourth from the bottom. I will be quoting from that picture often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.157.9 (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the article people of the book

hi, thanks for putting a lock on the article

however i hope to change the current form of the article to the neutral position and the compromise that i will propose. will you be availabe when changes to the article are going to be made? that would be good for the article. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ReligionScholar, if you return to your previous editing pattern, before finding someone on the article's talk page who supports your changes, you will most likely be blocked for a longer time. Five different editors have reverted you, suggesting you are a minority of one. Your idea of 'the neutral version' is shared by no one else. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Beeblebrox! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 29th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I still thought you weren't meant to be handing these out anymore... (scratches head) --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(not so) Toughdude

I note you've blocked User:Toughdude, but I suspect he's returned as Meancop. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, blocked an tagged. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Quick work but you can expect a reincarnation. This guy keeps coming back. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I think a rangeblock might be in order at some point. Of course, if he keeps being sooo obvious it's pretty easy to stop the individual socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

Seems to be here in a couple of manifestations. Not just User:Jesus-O-Bot but also User:China Jesus. If you take a peek at User talk:Favonian you'll find contribs which tie them together. Crafty (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since they could theoretically simply be responding to the request not use a "bot" username, I blocked just the Jesus-O-Bot account, although the other one will probably end up at AIV soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no doubt it will. :) Crafty (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Metalslugairbrush.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Metalslugairbrush.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets editing Harlan Sanders

I think the sockmaster is actually User:JI Hawkins here. The edits are pretty similar. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't look back far enough. Will re-tag socks now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The terms you used in your protection summary were, uh, unique. Don't think I've ever seen that term used "officially" around here before. Can't really say that I disagree with its use, either, but seeing it in the page history did give me a laugh. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Usually I bite my tongue, but this was so ridiculously stupid I felt compelled to call it as I saw it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So according to that guy's theory, the Colonel would be, what, 119 years old now? You need to be aware that it is not appropriate to call an editor a "jackass". Unless, of course, you can prove it. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think the puppeteer still isn't who we thought. It looks like this all started with User:$nake420, or maybe User:ShortTermDonation. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Searching the last 500 revisions for "Elvis", the earliest I could find was User:Earl mooner. User:$nake420,User:Bubba Hawkins, and User:Jake Da $nake seem to be socks. I'm not sure about User:ShortTermDonation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PROD

If someone (especially the article creator) removes a PROD template without explaining themselves, is it possible to re-add it? I've given the article creator an hour to explain themselves and said that, after that, I'll re-add it. If I shouldn't, can you see if this fits for CSD criteria that I missed? Either that, or I need to submit an AFD. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anyone may remove the prod, after which it may not be readded. I don't see a CSD that this one fits. Actually, according to List of THQ games#V, there is a 1997 THQ game called Versus that is still a redlink. I wonder if they are the same thing? Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if they give no reasoning for it? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(scratches head) Okay, I'm not even going to try to make sense of that one. I'll nominate it for AFD. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at this, this game did exist, but there are so many other games with "VS" or "versus" in the title that there I'm getting tons of false positives wherever I search it. I found it for sale on eBay, but nothing in the reliable sources department. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, damn, your reply got buried in my watchlist, sorry. I gave up on the third page of Google. I kept getting stuff on the console wars. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:68.228.221.99‎

Could you take a peek at this blocked anon? He's placing bogus unblock templates on his talkpage. I'm not sure which of our numerous noticeboards I'd send this to, so I figured I'd ask you. :) Crafty (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. You can make this sort of request at WP:RPP if you can't find an vandal-whacking admin like myself to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whatever you did, it's not working... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the reblock. It seems he can still edit his talkpage. Apparently you and the Jade Falcon are gay, whereas he's merely gonna smoke me with his gun. He seems a little bit gangsta. :) Crafty (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I keep doing this dumb thing where I say in the edit summary that I'm revoking talk page access but forget to actually do it, it's fixed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup you got the bugger. :) It's good to know about WP:RFPP. I'll remember that. Ta, Crafty (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wow... you're almost as forgetful as I am. :P And I'm not gay, merely heteroflexible. See here for an "epic smackdown on homophobia" as a friend called it. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is hillarious because I am gay. Isn't that just typical of vandals these days? Can't get nuffink right. ;) Crafty (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it an insult for you to be called straight? Just curious. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Not insulting, just inconvenient. ;) Crafty (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dug-out

Thanks for your image which does much to salvage the article!

Your comment on another page interested me: whether some manufacturers are using aluminum in the one-hitters furnished with dug-outs. My thought: (1) if you use a screen in the one-hitter, you can use sifted (uniform particle size) herb without "shooters" clogging the channel, and thereby achieve a lower burning temperature which may be under threshold for loosening any aluminum. (2) the article should express the idea that adding on a flexible long drawtube, such as furnished on hookahs, makes it easier to see what you are doing and light more moderately; also gives smoke more time to cool down before inhalation, a health advantage. Citations for these directives have been hard to find because researchers feared repercussions if their findings indicated there is any better, safer way to "break the law".

(3) For article title I think the generic concept of "one-hitter", with a crater-diameter narrow enough for single tokes at low temperature, is more relevant for most readers than the amusing but trivial brandnamed container, "dug-out". Grouping this information under "chillum" would not be as good because not all chillums are one-hitters (though they should be).Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AKRHO topic block

I saw you put a editing freeze on Alpha Kappa Rho a couple of weeks back, but since it got lifted, a sock of User:Update101 has been reverting it to a more crufty version, can we put an edit block of at least two months? Seems Update101 is hellbent on seeing his version taken in to account. Thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

TrEeMaNsHoE and offer

Time to stamp that as invalid? Continued socking with IP 68.79.100.158 (talk). Characteristics point to a duck. — ξxplicit 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked, tagged, offer rescinded. Color me disappointed but not at all surprised. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Socking, obsessive editing

Hey Beeblebrox, I don't rightly understand the kind of behavior you signaled. Is it some psychological disorder? And over the discography of an entirely forgettable singer of muzak? Drmies (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

More or less, yes. See:[13]. I'm no psychiatrist, but I do work with mentally ill people at my job, and most of our more disruptive serial sockpuppeteers fit the profile. Have a look around WP:LTA, which is virtually a library of Wikipedia based neurosis. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Interesting reading. Later, Drmies (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chocokake

It's not native american, it's indian (----)

Ha! That makes it seem even more ridiculous. Thanks for digging that hole a little deeper. You may want to read this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(never seen that page before, busy laughing) --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Beeblebrox, as you are the admin involved in the sockpuppet investigation in which Neftchi (myself) and XrAi are accused, I come to you with a troubling matter. But before I contacted you I had informed Buckshot06 on this matter, as I didnt know who the admin was of the investigation until now nor, did I know the procedures. Therefore, please accept my apology that the following is somewhat the same text I send Buckshot06, however the arguments still remain solid for all.

Eventhough the accusing party (Izzedine) has withdrawn his accusation, I have several questions on his behavior. Izzedine failed to give a reason for his accusation, instead he simply awaited a checkuser report. I dont believe its right to randomly accuse people this way and not give out a reason. I kindly asked him for a reason, but he ignored to give one, instead he was busy with other things, I note the following:

  • Here he send Intelligent Mr Toad a message and I qoute him saying: "This one seems like a problem editor. If you have further concerns about him and decide to report it, let me know." and gives a link to the sockpuppet investigation that he just a few moments earlier had started.
    • Is this even allowed? When I asked him to eloborate this, he said and I qoute: "Yes (Neftchi), perhaps an edit-warring report needs to be opened in addition to this, as it looks like you are causing disruption to many editors." (this can be seen in the deleted socketpuppet investigation here

Now you know Intelligent Mr Toad is a user who several times removed the sourced sentence of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic... and start a headline on this matter in the talk page of Azerbaijan.

  • Now suddenly Izzedine joins in with Intelligent Mr Toad, as can be seen here.
  • His anti-Azerbaijan mood continue's in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article in where he completely removes well sourced information in the lead, he doesnt join the talk or give a valid reason for his removal, he simply says "ridiculous statement for the lead", see here
  • Its also worthy to mention that his first edit in the Azerbaijan article ever has to revert my edit, as can be seen here
  • In his second edit in Azerbaijan article he again removed fully sourced information, seehere
  • After all this he blanked out the sockpuppet investigation page [14] and wanted a speedy deletion of the investigation [15] then you, the admin restored the information of the investigation [16] but again Izzedine blanked out the entire investigation page [17].

I am shocked at this behavior and would like to see an investigation report on his behavior, I wonder is this kind of attitude acceptable or not. I wish you to take a look at this urgent matter as all his vandal-attacks are still unreverted. Neftchi (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My only involvement with this was related to whether the page should be deleted. I suggest you re-post this at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can you semi-protect Special Boat Service again please? Same guy, same thing. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he was editing from a static ip, which has now been blocked. I'll keep an eye out though in case he comes back. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I figured it was a dynamic since it's different. Thanks for correcting me. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's different than the last time, but all the edits today were from the same address. Probably they are using a different computer today. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A10

In case you do not know, there is a new CSD: A10. That is the deletion reason I would have given for India's Italian article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was being discussed, but I hadn't noticed it had actually become "official," thanks for the heads up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

lol!

I left a message for you on the wp:rpp page. haha A8UDI 00:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Scott La Rock


This may entertain you

A more recent sock of TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs): PhoneBed (talk · contribs). Not only does he ignore consensus, he goes out of his way to create his own versions of existing articles. Talk about stubborn! — ξxplicit 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this goes a little beyond "stubborn"" Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost and WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit this month or last month at that talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report or my talk page. The best guide to what the community is expecting from the surveys is to follow the links above to see what they've already done; we haven't had any complaints. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure it's exactly what you wanted, it's more what I think everyone should know about UAA than a rundown of recent changes, but maybe you can pull something out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Good responses this week. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

oversight my page protection?

Without getting into it too much, can you take a look at my protection of Scientific opinion on climate change and decide if full-prot (or any prot) is warranted? There's a ton of background on ANI, you'll probably need to skim at least some of it. I'm not trying to drag you into the drama, but going to you as a 'neutral admin'. I'm not going to be involved with that article anymore (duh), so make whatever call is appropriate with regards to the level of protection. tedder (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedders

I note that you decline to comment on the only important fact - was tedders edit warring (y/n), was tedders doing the protection himself as opposed to seeking uninvolved admins appropriate (y/n), was tedders informing another user that his tag was "blessed" appropriate (y/n). The dispute in my mind is not about the article, and tags, and protections, but rather a newbie admin making a rookie mistake, and convincing that admin never to repeat that mistake. Please re-evaluate. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review the protection, and I did. I think we can assume after all this drama that Tedder has got the message. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to assume that. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but Tedder has been rather economical with his facts. The principle point at issue is not the protection, but his addition of the POV tag in addition to protection. Please review the addition of that tag William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want to continue talking about Tedder's behavior and carry on the thread at ANI, nobody is stopping you from doing that. I am trying to avoid the same pitfalls that led to this drama in the first place, I won't be getting involved in the actual dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please listen to what I'm actually saying. There is an unreadable ANI thread already, we don't need another one. Tedder has taken two actions: (1) protecting the page (I disagree with that, but not greatly. YOu've already reviewed that and OK'd it; fine) (2) editing in the POV tag just before that. That is effectively an admin action, because it was done, delinerately, by him just before the protect. You haven't reviewed that action of his, and you should William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok now please listen to what I am actually saying: my only role in this is reviewing/taking over the protection, I will not be getting directly involved in this dispute. Please review WP:WRONG. Further discussion of the appropriateness of the tag is already underway on the article's talk page. If and when a consensus to remove it has been reached there, a request can be made using {{editprotected}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The irony here is that one of the editors calling for Tedder's head because of "involvement", was himself desysopped for blocking an opposing party in an arbcom dispute (about as involved as one can get), and his reaction to that action was stunned defiance at the audacity of the committee to have sanctioned him. To this day he has never acknowledged that his action was in error, yet here he is wikilawyering against Tedder for what can best be described as a minor technical breach. There is irony, there is delicious irony, and then there is Wikipedia. ATren (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Although Tedder asked *here* for you to only review the prot, note that at ANI Tedder has claimed that I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you are unwilling or unable to take a hint, allow me to be blunt: 'I'm not going to get involved in this dispute other than reviewing the protection and watching for further edit warring or disruption after protection expires. Please stop pestering me about this. I trust this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It clarifies your involvement. Disappointing. Verbal chat 14:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It clarifies the fact that there is a certain group of editors who will not accept any answer except the one they demand. ATren (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on something! Verbal chat 15:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your actions are being misrepresented on the article talk page by GoRight. Please clarify there. Verbal chat 23:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thnk you for your actions re the RFC, which are helpful. Alas, elsewhere you are imprecise: The fact that Tedder backed away from this issue and asked for another admin to review his actions is wrong, as you know: his actions include adding the tag before protect, which he has refused to ask another admin to review, and which you yourself have specifically refused to do William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really appreciate it! --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, you deserve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Garage Sale

I have no objections to the new name, but they've got to make it clear they won't be doing COI editing. (I suppose I should have used {{uw-spamublock}} in this case, but I AGF in cases where the account only edits a similarly-named article or userspace page). Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, I still don't think the old name warranted a block as a username violation. I've unblocked them and warned them about coi editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks spam

Hey, Beeblebrox. Thanks for taking time to respond to my question at AN/I. I'm posting here because I didn't think the noticeboard was the venue for this message. As I suspected there is not much black and white to the issue. I've left the IP's contribs alone even though I find the "Glen X is a glen" formula less informative than what it replaced. It's just my POV and I don't believe my POV is any more important than the anon's. I did want to let all the responders know that I found their input helpful. Regards Tiderolls 13:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Rutherford

The article does not appear to have been protected: protection logs. It receives persistent vandalism and has been protected many times before. Please can you do so again. Jhbuk (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, I could've sworn I did do it, but anyway it's fixed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

edit war

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heads_of_state_and_government_by_net_worth&action=history

when you called of the edit war, you put the vandalized version up. that was the intention of those who started the edit war. i would appreciate it if you put back to the last edit i made. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC at Scientific opinion on climate change

I would request that the RfC also be included in the Political category as well since my issue with the current article is that it is excluding the non-scientific points of view. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just moved the lengthy opening statements to a new section above the tag, with a note and pointer. This has worked in the past to limit the speed with which an RfC devolves into just another argument with the same deadlocked participants. I would not, however, wish to step on your toes with this currently delicate article. Please move the text back if you think that the presentation is better that way. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As expected ...

Please see [18]. Given the obvious level of visibility this has received and the fact that there have been several failed attempts to reach consensus on the removal of the tag, I fail to see how this can be viewed as anything other than continued edit warring in the face of multiple clear warnings not to.

I am sorry that you have to be dragged through this, and PLEASE under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you act as my meat puppet as they have already demonstrated they are more than will to accuse you of such, but please take some action here ... or if you prefer I can take this to a noticeboard. I am merely attempting to avoid further drama there, if possible. --GoRight (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll note, WMC indicated his intent to do this on his talk, while deliberately introducing a proposal that didn't mention removal of the tag. He did this in order to garner more support from the "wackos", but he fully intended to resume the tag edit war as soon as the page was unprotected. He even used the word "we", indicating they would war in tandem. These are the games WMC and his friends play. Doesn't such aggressive, warring behavior warrant a block? Why do admins continue to give this group of editors, led by WMC, a pass? ATren (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As a side note to Beeblebrox, I re-protected the page after seeing a multi-lateral edit-war flare up within hours of the expiry of the previous protection. I'm not making any judgments on specific editors involved in the dispute; I'll leave that to you or other admins. MastCell Talk 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'm glad I slept late today, you can take the grief for re-protecting it. Enjoy, it's been a real hoot so far, as you can see... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing useful to add to this thread, but I did want to register my amusement. It's the admin gift that keeps on giving. tedder (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in the collective opinion here. I bear Tedder no ill will and he blocked me for goodness sake. Is it better for me to avoid the drama on the AN threads and come to the "protecting admin" first, or is that unfair to you? I'm fine with doing it either way, I was just trying to pursue things through the "proper channels" assuming there is such a thing around here. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, User:MastCell is now the admin "holding" the protection, but at a glance I would say it's pretty obvious the edit war picked up right where it left off. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If anyone thinks that things are likely to quiet down, they're more than welcome to lift the protection early without asking me - I'm not very proprietary about it. As for avenues, you can do whatever. Boards like AN3, RFPP, AIV, etc act as convenient places to get an admin's attention for a specific problem. But not all requests need to go through there - it's a convenience, not a mandatory step. If I see a vandal, I might block them without waiting for someone to file at AIV. If I see an edit war, I might block or protect without waiting for charges and countercharges at AN3.

You can ask a specific admin to look at something, especially if they've previously taken action with regard to an article or situation. It was fine to bring this to Beeblebrox's talk page - in fact, if I'd seen this post before I protected the page, I might have waited for him to handle it. But it is what it is - I felt pretty comfortable that full protection of the page was a judgment call that most, if not all, admins would think reasonable under the circumstances, which is why I made it. Did that answer your (GoRight's) question? MastCell Talk 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my kind of non-answer, I'm about done dealing with this mess. I suspect this is going to go on for a loooooong time, and will probably involve more periods of protection, socking, ANI, blocking, ArbCom, etc. If I had been awake this morning I would have turned the protection back on upon seeing the active edit war, which I'm glad to see GoRight managed to steer clear of this time. Looks like we are now having a problem with personal attacks on the talk page as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MC and BB for your input. I wasn't asking for any action with that last question, it was more of a restrospective ping to gauge what you all think is appropriate behavior. I hear a lot of complaints that taking everything to AN or ANI is disruptive, so when there is a more direct oversight channel I try to use it. But in this case that approach got Tedder accused on being my meat puppet which is totally ridiculous. He was acting of his own volition based on what he thought was right. So I guess I was just asking if it is "normal" for people to bring things like this to the "overseeing admin", or not. If I'm doing something weird I want to know about it which is why I asked. I'm certainly not shy about taking things to those venues but I am trying to find less dramatic options, that's all. --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_12&oldid=1263038776"