User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beeblebrox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Airports

I continue to see deletion discussions regarding airports come across my watchlist, both involving you and not involving you. It's always the same story; we need to keep the article, yet we don't need to improve it. However, I'm pretty sure that the sorry state of the article was what motivated someone to nominate it for deletion in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that coverage of Alaska aviation on Wikipedia is a joke, but because it has been allowed to become that way more than anything else. The scores of useless airport articles is merely a prime example of that; the construction and updating of these articles suggests a flagrant disregard for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My opinion is that any airport which receives less than X number of enplanements per year, or is not a hub for an air carrier which has an article on here, is fair game for merging to the community's article. The section mentioning Soldotna Airport was not overwhelming Soldotna, Alaska one bit after you merged it. Obviously, someone with too much time on their hands felt it necessary to paint this whole Rediske Air crash as being something far more significant than it really was. That's really been the case with recent versus historical air crashes in general, something you and I have discussed to some extent before. What to do? The big problem is that the vast majority of what is truly notable about Alaska aviation and its history is found in book sources, rather than on the web. Letting individual editors do what they feel like without regard for the bigger picture has lead to a glaring case of undue weight. Mac McGee, or for that matter, the Rediskes, were highly regarded within the Alaska aviation community. That doesn't mean that their names should be plastered all over Wikipedia to excess while other, far more significant names are largely ignored (just to name a few: Frank Barr, Haakon Christianson, John Cross, Archie Ferguson, Harold Gillam, Harmon Helmericks, Alex Holden, Bill Munz, Shell Simmons, Mudhole Smith, Al Wright; of course, I could go on and on and on). In the case of those aviators who have been covered, the articles read more like a particular editor's fascination with the airplanes they flew than proper biographical articles. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, despite having been to Soldotna dozens of times until two years or so ago I didn't even know there was an airport there, and I still don't know where it is. But, not only was that article split back off, someone used the crash as an opportunity to start a dedicated article on Rediske Air. On the other hand the Whittier Airport, perhaps one of the most ridiculous "airport" articles I have ever seen, remains merged. (shhhh, don't tell anyone) I tried a year ow two ago to get a friend who is a bit of an aviation nut and has lived in AK his whole life to become an editor, but he didn't go for it.

None of the aviation fans will admit this, but they seem to operate on the assumption that things that fly or facilities for those things are inherently more notable than ground or water based transportation of a similar size. I recall one AFD a few years ago where someone argued that an air taxi outfit with two five-passenger floatplanes was a crucial piece of Juneau's transportation infrastructure. Even after I explained about the state ferry and presented an image of an Alaska Airlines 737 taking of from the Juneau airport they stuck to that position. I hate to be "that guy" but if you haven't lived in or at least visited AK, you probably don't get how very common and banal airplanes, airstrips, airports, and even plane crashes are up here. I still participate in some discussions about this but I have to admit I have basically given up on the idea of introducing some sanity into this area. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil

Beeblebrox, it may not have been your intent, but with this comment you have implied that Ceoil is a troll. Not only is that an mischaracterization of the situation, but it's a bit of a nut-shot since Ceoil is unable to go defend himself. I request that you reword or remove this comment. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That certainly was not my intent, but I can see how it could be perceived that way. I'll add a note for clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You got dragged in...sorry, bad timing, unfortunate. Thanks for clarifying anyway. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One of those things...that make wiki the fun minefield it is for all of us ;) Anyway. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

After the edit conflicts settled, I see now the topic is closed. However, the topic ends with a personal attack against me. The one who made the attack apologized to me on my User:Haldrik talk page. I appreciate this. Unfortunately, the reversion ends with me unable to respond. The accusation undermines the credibility of both User:Paul Barrow and me, who are victims of a bully. Heavy handedness by any administrators increases the victimization. Perhaps, re-revert, the topic to include my response as an addendum, tho I consider the topic closed. Thank you, for your concern. Haldrik (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was apparently commenting on your talk page at the same time you were posting this. See my comment there. And stop with the personal attacks. Either file at WP:RFCC or stop making such accusations. There is not a third option that does not involve you being blocked again, and I'd rather not have to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. In the same spirit, please include the given defense against the (inadvertant) personal attack against me. Or perhaps, delete the attack with permission from the editor who made it. Haldrik (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with how to lodge a formal complaint by user. So far, asking for help from administrators has proven counterproductive. Please trust I am acting in good faith. Haldrik (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, between AN and here I think I've mentioned WP:RFCC three or four times now. If you want to have an in-depth discussion about a specific users' behavior, that's the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, looking at that page, it isnt so user friendly. I will wade thru it and see if I can make sense of it. Haldrik (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Unblockables

Could you take a look at recent edits to that page? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I came in here regarding the same page User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables. I happened to point out this page to Soham321 and he happened to edit it. The user is kinda newbie and i would assume that he doesn't know that articles in user-space are not really free for anyone's edit. You are quite free to revert it all. But i would suggest that you keep some of it, phrase it better, remove some content, (like gender specific pronouns, etc.) and make the essay more useful to all editors. It seems its written only for admins who are dealing with unblockables. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That's right, i did not know i cannot edit articles in user space without the owner's permission. Please do what Dharmadhyaksha is suggesting. Thanks. Soham321 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Also, Guy Macon has deleted some of my edits in that article; please consider re-inserting them (after phrasing them better perhaps). Soham321 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually, you should not be editing another users's subpages unless they make it clear they don't mind. I do mind. I keep this in my userspace because it reflects my opinions and perspectives on these issues. If you want to express your opinions and perspectives, feel free to do so in your own userspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User: Apteva

Hello Beeblebrox, You may wish to take a look at my own Talk page regarding a series of edits I made to Apteva's "contributions", before this user was blocked by yourself. I have to say I dislike the tone of Incnis Mrsi comments, which in any case are inaccurate. I do contribute to Wikipedia articles, besides reverting vandalism and silly comments. Your advice/comments would be welcome. Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Request

could you please give me some pointers on how i can write an article in user space? Soham321 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SUBPAGE for details on how to actually create the page and and WP:ESSAY for a broad overview of Wikipedia essays. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"oversight matters... are subject to the WMF privacy policy and nothing else"

SINCE YOU ASKED

in your edit sumarry if this should move to another page, the answer is most certainly yes. And please don't bother telling me what other page it is because I don't care. You've made your little point, I referred to one thing when I meant something else. Making a big deal out of it is not likely to yeild useful results. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This afternoon in Hong Kong I attended a panel session with the WMF legal team that included General Counsel Geoff Brigham, Deputy General Counsel Luis Villa, Michelle Paulson, and Yana Welinder. I identified myself and said that my question concerned the oversighting of an item in a Wikipedia biography before asking if it was true that an oversight action here was subject to "WMF privacy policy." They replied that they didn't know what you could be referring to, as WMF privacy policy concerns the privacy of Wikipedians, not article subjects. I noticed that current ArbCom member User:Risker was in the audience sitting near the front with respect to verifying my question and the reply. In a later session on transparency I raised the subject again and although several current or former WMF board members were there, in addition to Executive Director Sue Gardner, they had nothing to add to what I was told earlier. The bottom line here is that there may be a WMF oversight policy that applies, but that's not the same thing as the WMF privacy policy.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. Semantics. The point is that oversight is one of the few processes on WP in which individual actions are not subject to consensus. If you want to change the policy, go for it. If you want to challenge specific OS actions, you need to contact WP:AUSC. If you want to continue giving me a hard time for something that upset you like six months ago, you need to drop it. I hope that is clear enough for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any other wikipedia things going on in HK? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell, if you're going to use my name in this respect, suggesting that I or anyone else you spoke to today actually knew or understood the specific circumstances involved in your question, the least you could to is actually speak to me in person beforehand. Nobody actually knows whether or not the privacy policy applies (and yes, there are plenty of occasions where it does in relation to suppression). See me tomorrow/today and we can talk. Risker (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If "there are plenty of occasions where it does in relation to suppression," Risker, why not, in the name of transparency, enumerate those occasions under meta:Oversight_policy#Use? I tracked down that policy on my own last night and note that there is no reference to any "WMF privacy policy" in that section. I didn't describe the specific circumstances yesterday that initially gave rise to my interest (I apologize if I created the impression above that I did) since my current interest is in not reviewing a particular historical action but in why I have to be growled at to stay away from an opaque area when the alternative of simply citing the chapter and verse of the governing policy to me is available. I've been invited to suggest to the community that the policy be changed if I feel it leads to too much unwarranted oversighting but what would be the point of fine tuning the policy's wording when those who apply the policy have such familiarity with it that they believe a very distinguishable policy applies "and nothing else"?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you're working to try to find a way of finding out what a specific suppressed edit says, but trying to draw in the community under false pretenses. I've never said it was only because of the privacy policy, but you keep putting those words in people's mouths. It is the oversight policy that applies. Now, since you're so curious about this specific point, I'll tell you that the suppressed edits contained libellous information that has never, even to this day, appeared in any reliable source anywhere (and I've looked for it, too, because I had to re-suppress it again after a technical problem). That would be point #2 in the oversight policy. I trust this will satisfy you. If it does not, contact me again when we are all back from Hong Kong. Or contact the AUSC. Or take it to the Ombud commission. But you're being brutally unfair to people from the WMF or the Board (or even by throwing around my name without talking to me directly) when you expect them to give an informed opinion without any background on the specific situation. Risker (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

@Risker, I'll show that assumptions about my motivations are necessarily incorrect elsewhere since they are not germane to this page and simply note here that all parties have learned something useful here, and that's that the meta:Oversight_policy is one thing and the meta:Privacy_policy is another. Could I have made that observation in a less critical way? Yes, but besides the fact I was interested in whether the distinction would be acknowledged (as opposed to, say, dismissed as "semantics") I happen to think that it is of great concern if those who apply the oversight policy are under the assumption that it's the same thing as the privacy policy, since oversighters are far less accountable than ordinary admins with respect to the transparency of their actions and the community's power to reverse.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to add here that point #1 in the oversight policy pretty much covers the range of non-public personal information that has been interpreted for many years across multiple projects to be covered under the privacy policy. The WMF has already initiated a process to revise this policy. It would be appropriate to comment there. Risker (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought that sounded a little... off. The event that Brian is referring back to and our previous interactions about it are detailed at User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 27#Censoring Paula Broadwell's edit history was inappropriate. I think if you have a look at what I actually removed, you can easily see the small but very important difference between what was written there and what was coming out in the press around that same time, but obviously I can't go into any more detail than that on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎Soham321

This user has begun adding inappropriate content to their user page, User talk:Soham321 that appears to violate WP:UP#POLEMIC. Both myself and user Sitush have attempted neutral warnings and advice concerning the content and my attempting to explain attribution requirements as this user has begun copying text from others on talk pages without proper attribution. All have been immediately removed by the user. I don't wish to file at AN/I at this time, however I am the target of much of it and feel this may have to be taken there if you are not comfortable looking into the situation.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be tagged with Template:humor. I see that I lost a DRN dispute and now my ego is bruised. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not finding it funny and I had nothing to do with the DR/N. I recused myself because prior interactions with Sitush. This is retaliation for the topic ban. Seriously Drmies...humor? If so...can I be even more "humorous"?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 05:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  - I have engaged the editor directly and asked that all mention of me be removed and if this is intended as humor as a show of good faith.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 05:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    - - That direct engagement has been removed in an uncivil attempt to hide comments.--Mark _{Just ask!} 06:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        I have engaged the editor. They have removed my comments and asked me not to post further then created an entire section on me on their page. I removed all mention of me on their talk page and was reverted. This will have to be addressed in some form. However if it is the decision that such behavior is acceptable I will see this as reason enough to simply mirror the behavior. I don't think this is a solution but if I am to be attacked and admin sees nothing wrong with it....I can certainly adjust my way of working on Wikipedia to be similar and respond in kind. Thanks. I see you are not available at the moment sorry to bring this to you plate.--Mark _{Just ask!} 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        I have removed the material and warned the editor against reinserting it. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

(←) Mark, I,haven't fully looked into this yet and may not have time until later today, but I have to say I am appalled that someone supposedly so concerned with editor retention and civility would think that "mirroring" bed behavior when admins did not act fast enough for their taste was a good idea. You deliberately came to my talk page instead of reporting at a noticeboard, and you did so while it happened to be night time in my part of the world and I was asleep. You have only yourself to blame for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what time you sleep and don't really take those things into consideration when the situation occurs at that time. I chose you exactly because you are not on friendly terms with me and cannot be seen as being in any clique. I wasn't suggesting the mirroring due to a time constraint in dealing with the issue. I was suggesting that if Drmies assessment was correct (by the way, I did not expect Drmies to take any action as we have a lot of interaction and that might look bad on them. Not sure) and it was just "humor" than anyone should be able to so, including me, which I also added was not a solution, nor did I have any intent to actually start such humor on my page. I don't consider blaming myself because you were asleep and or did not act on anything. I was aware that it was late (even here were I am). But your concern is legitimate and I can understand your being appalled, so I will state here clearly, regardless of my editor retention and civility concerns that I had no intention of fighting fire with fire. That is not a solution. It would have been an escalation, which is something I am completely aware of and never had any intention of doing.--Mark 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Beeb, I'm sorry to butt in, but Mark, have you considered a rest? Sure, this Soham guy is a bit of a pain, but there are lots of them here, and they come and they go, then more of them come and they go too - it's not unusual.

The people we work with long term is what we should concern ourselves with because I guess we share their ideals or we wouldn't be here. On a personal level, I've seen heaps and heaps of good work from you here for basically ever and ever, but just this last couple of days/weeks you seem all stoked up about stuff and quite angry even. I've just quietly disappeared a couple of times in my career because I felt it was all a pile of crap, but I always came back eventually, because I decided it was worth the time again.

Sometimes I just say stuff it to everything except the Graphics labs where I can contribute with no controversy - then eventually I want to say stuff about big issues again. This is important, though - each time I feel my big issue controversial stuff is better after the rest - it's like I learn while I stay away from the hot areas, subliminally, in the background.

Wow - that was a lot from a talk page stalker, and I've considered 3 times now not posting it - but what the hell, I thought it, I wrote it, so posted it is. Genuinely sorry if you see it as anything other than concern for someone who is, I think, where I've been before. Take care. Begoon ^talk 19:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Although we do not always see eye to eye I never would have expected threats to deliberately act in bad faith to come from you. I believe it when you now say you didn't really mean it, but maybe a step back for a few days or even weeks would be helpful. I sometimes just go through my watchlist and purge all the drama related pages fro it, although like Begoon I always seem to come back eventually, but feeling less discouraged. I'm about to take a brief break myself, in a few days I will once again be out in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge far, far away from a cell tower or a wifi hotspot, admiring the view and maybe catching a fish. Nothing is a better cure for wiki-drama than just not looking at it for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Brit originally, and it's a marvellous place to come from (or be from). I'd argue for ever with someone who said Britain was boring or urban - they just haven't been out much. I moved to Australia about 18 years ago, and this place is done in colour to the extent it makes where I come from look grey, sometimes. It's God's country where the blues are bluer, the sky is.., well you get the drift. I guess what I'm saying is you need to be away from something to realise how good it was, and why you thought so. Sometimes I'd rather be back there, sometimes I'd rather not.... Perspective. I can recommend it. Best. Begoon ^talk 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You are both right, of course. I think a lot of things on Wiki have been building up over the last few months with me and I simply lost all perspective and got hooked in a conflict with someone, just because they wanted to continue and neither of us willing to just stop. Funny Begoon but I was once part of the graphics lab and was trying to get back to that with a project of reproducing a free license svg COA of Canada. I think the graphics lab suggection is right up my alley, although....I also live just a few miles from the Cosumnes River Preserve. We go there every so often just to get away from everything. Love that place.--Mark 03:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dimenson10

Beeblebrox, were you aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon/Archive when you indef'd Dimension10 for block evasion? This was already discussed a month or two ago, and it looks like several admins had already decided to not block Dimension10? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no actually. I just saw a user who seemed inclined to cause rather than resolve problems who admitted to being an indef-blocked user. I assumed a sock investigation was not needed since they admitted it right up front, almost bragged about it actually. They haven't mentioned the SPI in their posts since being blocked, in fact they were already indicating they had decided to retire anyway. That being said, if there is a consensus to overturn the block in the current circumstances I'm fine with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he's being either disruptive or (more likely, IMHO) borderline disruptive; if I had time to look into his edits further, I would likely agree that it's about time for a final warning on those grounds. But an unwarranted block for sockpuppetry risks muddying the water, and risks making a reblock for different reasons, whether done by you or others, look like a CYA block.

How about I unblock, give a final warning for disruption, and if he actually retires, then there's no harm; if he listens to the warning, there's no harm; and if he continues down the same path, then we block him for the right reason? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't get how evading a perfectly valid block is the "wrong" reason. Looking at the SPI it seems several commenters there were actually calling for further discussion, not just ignoring the situation, but I don't see any indication that discussion ever took place. And Dimension 10 has specifically stated they are not requesting to be unblocked, so I'm not sure what the point would be, but if you are volunteering to babysit this user I guess go ahead and unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep an eye on them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this up at ANI - Floquenbeam, you've basically said "fuck consensus" with this unblock. Jesus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC) (not mine, obviously)

I have closed the above referenced discussion as the proponent has offered no evidence to justify the requested action. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I would have been interested to see which if us the community felt was more delusional regarding the status of the incubator, that was probably the right move. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

admin option questions

Hi Beeblebrox,

Why don't/can't you full protect User talk:Apteva?

I'm not very happy with Wikipedia:Government, and the way the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Government is currently set aside. I think it may need revisiting. Technically, is it easy to split a page into two, the opposite of a hisoty merge, one page preserving the old version, the second contain the new versions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it but I suspect it would cause more unproductive discussion, of which we have had plenty already. As to the government page, I gave up on it. I look at it as a "let the baby have his bottle" situation. It's a ridiculous idea that will never fly, so why not let him waste his time playing with it? Look at his other failed project, Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party. Complete nonsense, utterly rejected by the community, but he acts like it just needs a little fine tuning to have a real impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was just me

I've been distracted lately and spend a fair amount of time over the past few weeks reading debates on Talk Pages, Noticeboards, at ArbCom, RfCs and the like. So much drama and outrage, and I futilely tried to make sense of it all.

Why was Editor A notified he was being discussed at ANI and then 12 hours later given an indefinite block with no notice on his Talk Page informing him that he was blocked and what he could do about it, without even giving him a chance to defend himself? And then there is the Admin who belittles and berates other editors she/he has a history with, saying the most vile and disparaging things about them and at the same time accusing them of uncivil behavior when they try to get back to a content discussion? I see some Admins lash out, insult other users, behavior that would get an ordinary editor a block and yet they commit these PAs on a daily basis (well, usually several times a day)? Is black white and white black now?

This essay just confirms to me that, no, I'm not seeing things incorrectly. I even heard this same argument:

Admin A - "Go ahead and block me, I'll come back. I'm not changing who I am for anyone."

Admin B - "See, a block won't change anything. It would be punitive and won't have any effect on their behavior so what's the point?"

What is most dispiriting is that I've seen several shelved proposals on how to make recalling an Admin a simpler affair. Many have tried, none have succeeded. But if this is frustrating to me, a casual editor, it must be supremely irritating to a fair Admin to see other Admins behaving so badly and not be able to do anything about it. I realize this is all about an online encyclopedia, not life and death, but it's like lawyers or doctors not taking away practitioner's license to practice because it would look bad (even if the professional has royally screwed over their clients).

I think that most editors HAVE to be casual about their activities on Wikipedia because once you start to care and get invested, you see massive inequities in how users are treated. And the problem is there are enough trolls & belligerent editors out there, attacking Admins that they can develop a hero complex or a "we're all in this together" attitude toward their peers. This just helps perpetuate the practice of cutting your friends some extra, 10 miles long, slack. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I was posting on to the Unblockables Talk Page. I didn't realize that the tab would reroute me to your regular Talk Page. You might consider having a separate TP for that essay. Sorry to go on so long. It's been building. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, I redirected here just to make it easier for me to follow any comments or conversation about it. I tried myself at creating a community based admin rights removal process a few years ago. It didn't work out. But not all unblockables are admins. In fact several of the more notable instances of this phenomena have involved users who don't go anywhere near admin work but believe (and are apparently correct in some cases) that their content contributions shield them from being accountable for being exceedingly rude to others on a very regular basis. I'm not talking occasional outbursts, I'm talking every time they speak to a user who is not one of their friends they gratuitously insult them. I believe this sort of thing to be one of the most serious problems facing this project, but so far all attempts to resolve it or come to some sort of consensus on these issues has failed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013

You were conspicuous by your absence ;) especially when the food kept running out - I heard that there were some good Japanese restaurants in the area. Perhaps London next year? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope so, I would really love to visit London, but it will be dependent on getting a scholarship again. Hope you all had a good time without me, if that's possible... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We managed, but only just... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

ME GO AWAY SOON

I may be around sporadically over the next two days, but after that I will be totally unavailable for about a week. If you need any admin stuff or anything else during that time poke some other admin. Unless you think I am so awesome that you would rather wait until after I get back, which is of course perfectly understandable. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'm out

Back in a week or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Loss of your F Off essay

Sad to see an essay get deleted, without first some attempt to rewrite it a bit. Although not a lot of people like my User:Lexein/Not in charge essay, I don't think I'd delete it under any sort of pressure. --Lexein (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of pressure. Recent events have led me to re-examine what is worth making abig deal about and what is not, and I just don't feel like I need to have that essay. If you or anyone else would care to recreate it elsewhere I'd be happy to resore it and move it elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lilith Sternin

As of now, I have accepted and am still accepting the title as is. The article is more often about the character. Nevertheless, I feel that, after re-reading the article, she deserves stand-alone notability. For now, I will NOT rename it to "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin" ever again. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazing Grace (2006 film) -- OR section

Hi Beeblebrox, I happened to see this comment you posted a couple of months ago on the subject of WP:OR in "Historical accuracy" sections and such in Wikipedia articles on films. In that respect, I have a concern about the growing mass of OR trivia/nitpicking that is the "Historical accuracy" section of the article on the film Amazing Grace (2006). Could you help out with taming that? Or should I place this comment/request on the Talk page of User:TheOldJacobite, whose good name you were defending at the time? Or, alternatively, do you think that section is OK as is? Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look a few sections above, you'll see that Beeb is away for a week. If you need this answered quickly you might want to ask someone else relevant. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

Hi Beeblebrox, I'm trying to understand your argument at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture. Do you want it to be moved to mainspace and then deleted straight away, or do you want it moved and sent to AfD? The latter seems unnecessary since it's already been through AfD, and I don't see the benefit to the former compared to just deleting now. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like it's been taken care of. Apologies if I'm flooding you with email notifications! --BDD (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote

I really like the quote on your User page. Are those your words? NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 22:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)^ish Beeblebrox's office, BDD speaking. Looks like it comes from the linked essay, courtesy of Antandrus. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've edited it to try and make that distinction more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Murderer96

Hi. You were the admin who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Murderer96. User:Murderer96 has been created again. I don;t know if it's the same content as before, but it's more fake reality show results. Is there a speedy tag for this type of thing. Stuff in user space doesn't seem to have anything applicable. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a rare but long-term problem, I've never been sure where it is coming from but once in a while we see an account like this that does nothing but post results from non-existent game shows. I've deleted the page as a hoax and blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe some of it comes from tengaged.com which seems to have huge number of people playing these fantasy reality games. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013

Thanks for closing it. It demonstrates why our RfC process is flawed - it demonstrates yet again that major RfC are often best put together by a team rather than by an individual, but people just won't listen. Nevertheless, for once, this RfC did turn out to be a start for the alternative proposals that were made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found that RFC can work reasonably well for most small decisions such as simple content disputes, but if you are trying to do anything more wide-reaching it often doesn't work if one user just throws open the doors without much planning. In fact I have written an essay on the subject of the right and wrong ways to approach these situations, born of my own sometimes disappointing experiences in this arena. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_relationship_with_User:Mhazard9, I have referred to your statements in June regarding the block of Mhazard9 for sockpuppetry and your decline of his unblock request. You may wish to comment on the current matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)

If it is alright with you, do you think you can withdraw your nomination and move the article to the mainspace? I think most people are okay with the subject as a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather just leave it for the closing admin.... whenever the finally show up, but have no objection to you or anyone else just moving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

About deletion nomination of an image

Regarding a deletion

Sir , this file is not a copyright violation . I have created the image and i am the owner of this particular image . I have uploaded this image in order to enrich the article with latest details . I will be very grateful to you if you pass this image as perfect . Please help me out . I have all the right to publish this image :) The image is being used on the page -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivam_Patil}

Yu have used a publicity photo of the actor (which will be copyrighted) and also text from the Times of India (which will also be copyrighted). The copyright remains with the original creators in this case - see derivative works for details. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What he said. and anyway, this is under discussion at Commons so I don't see why it needs to also be discussed on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Adminship?

It's been three years. I wonder if I should run again. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been so long I am having trouble remembering why the very thought of it causes me to recoil in horror, so that's something I suppose. I've just gotten off work and am ready to enjoy the holiday weekend, so it may be a few days before I construct a more coherent and thorough reply to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush. I'm still replying to posts from January on my talk page, so even a short reply so promptly puts you far ahead of me. ;-) Enjoy the holiday. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, big guy, once you become an admin, you will have never have any trouble remembering why the thought of it makes you recoil in horror, he said encouragingly. ;) Personally, I would very much welcome you getting the mop, though, and although my record on this is obviously far from outstanding, considering the only person I have recently nominated for adminship, User:History2007, has retired, I would be happy to support your run, if you think that would help of course. But, all joking aside, yeah, I would very much welcome seeing you get the mop, and I do think you are more than qualifiedJohn Carter (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To use a cliché: I thought he was one already :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He was, then he wasn't, then he was again, then not again. An unusual case to be sure, possibly completely unique, I certainly can't recall anyone who had been an admin twice getting the mop a third time. It has been a while and the community has seemed a bit more forgiving (perhaps even a little too forgiving in one or two cases) of late so I'd say there's a decent chance here but I don't think it could happen without a nomination statement that is a full accounting of what went wrong before and a clear statement of what will not be happening again should the RFA succeed. An awful lot of folks who participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4 are not around anymore, but WPs institutional memory is such that a fair number of users will, like me, remember there were problems in the past even if they don't instantly remember exactly what they were. So getting out in front of that and owning past mistakes from the get go is probably the only way that RFA number 5 could succeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. I think the relatively recent indefinite blocks will be more of an issue than anything else, but... who knows. I've tentatively agreed to run again on October 1. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Beeblebrox. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Typo on your user page

It's "Antandrus." best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

doh. thanks for spotting that,

Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Time for a drink

Beeblebrox, thanks again for the RFA nom. That went quite well in the end... Singularity42 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Truly, it was my pleasure. You sure sailed through a lot easier than i did in either of my RFAs. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You've been mentioned here. Gird your loins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This should be amusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Agreed. ArbCom cases are filed if you so much as sneeze these days. :-P17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Decisive Victory" discussion

Hello. I found article about Normandy Landings some time ago, it said "Decisive Allied Victory", I went on 2nd battle of Kharkov and here is just "Axis Victory". With same statements used to say Decisive Allied, in Kharkov it was decisive for Axis. I can bring several reasons: In Kharkov, Axis powers had well planned military action which was succesfull, they had less strenght and also still less casualties. I wrote Decisive axis but someone reverted it with reason of "Huggle". In Normandy, then I removed decisive and someone reverted with Vandalism reason. Seems here is bias of pro-allied ideology? To fix this, we must make Neutral point of view and remove decisive from all battle victories. I started discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Normandy_landings

Regards --Obitauri (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting a discussion was definently the right move. The mistake you are making is in saying if it says "decisisve" in one article we 'have to say it in another article that you believe is about a similar victory. Our own observations, right or wrong, count for nothing here. What counts is what the sources say. So, find some sources that back your position, and you've got yourself a logical argument. Just be careful not to slip back into edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hamara Bajaj

The article that you moved from incubator was probably in incubator because the film is on hold. I have added two links at the end which say so. I am not yet sure of its status though. The latest link in it is of April 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't real sure what was going on, my own search yielded mostly results pertaining to the motor scooter the film is apparently named after. And now it seems they might be having some trouble because of that. I wonder if this title shouldn't actually be an article about the scooter, the articles i saw suggested it is or at least was an icon/cultural touchstone in India. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats quite likely to happen. The scooter was of Bajaj Auto and their old like Bajaj Chetak and Bajaj Super were advertised in late 1980s by the tag line Hamara Bajaj (Our Bajaj). The film is using that catchphrase where the lead character's surname is also Bajaj. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP exemption to WP:3RR

Beeblebrox - I think User:Thisgalladumc edits appropriately fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR. Could you please consider removing this warning?--v/r - T P 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As you are obviously perfectly aware, not everyone agrees that BLP concerns excuse any and all otherwise unacceptable behavior. There was absolutely no attempt at discussion despite a week of edit warring. That is not ok and I'm not going to pretend it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please remove the block? As i have provided extra specific references for the edit as shown here.Fotoriety (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 18:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Last I heard Wer and Count Iblis were concocting an arbcom case "against" me and some other horrible people. Should be the funniest thing to come down the pike in a long while, and when that farce-in-the-making blows up in their faces it might help resolve this mess, but unfortunately I don't think ANI is doing any good at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There needs to an meta RfC about WP:AN/I proposing that closures/unclosures should only be done by admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to phrase in terms of closing or re-openng discussions of any kind that could result in a user being blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Admins are tasked with evaluating when it is time to block a user. The underlying principle, which we do use elsewhwere, being that nobody should be saying no to a request if they are not able to reply with a yes. But yeah, close/re-open wars are pretty lame, which is why I am just keeping my distance from all that. I don't much care who closes it anyway, it seems clear Wer has no intention of toning down his attacks and that certain segements of the community think it is fine to deliberately antagonize a user without ever actually trying to resolve issues you have with them, so long as that user is an admin. I mean you know what it's like, living this high life of admin luxury. The free drinks in the admin's lounge, the endless banquets, the gold-plated Caddilacs, and of course the feeling of godlike power that comes from having a few extra buttons to use on a website... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the business class travel and 5-star hotel accommodation for Wikimania... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC about "oppose" comments

I am contacting every editor who commented at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Questions about "oppose" comments in WP:RFC/Us, in case you might wish to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarification of the rules. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding edit count

Hi Beeblebrox. You denied my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer saying that I have "just over 200 edits to articles". How do you determine how many edits an user has made? I thought I had 1106 edits to articles per X!'s Edit Counter. Thanks. Ajax F¡ore_talk 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I used the "wiichecker" link, which automatically analyzes a users last 500 edits. You have to tell it to analyze all of them for totals, which I thought I had done in your case but apparently I did not. My apologies, I will re-evaluate your request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and thanks for introducing me to wiichecker, it's a very useful tool. Ajax F¡ore_talk 21:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

iBan

Suppose I want to apply for WP:MILLION recognition. I have several articles at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews, that are eligible for some level of recognition. Should I approach a third party to nominate them? Can he award any of these articles (so far, he has only awarded Michelle Obama).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

when I informed you of the ban I added a link to WP:IBAN. Here is the entire text of that policy section in case you missed it

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are banned from interacting with each other in any way.[1] For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: edit editor Y's user and user talk space; reply to editor Y in discussions; make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Putting aside the obvious question of why you would even want an award from someone you so clearly do not like or have any respect for, you could submit something but someone else would obviously have to review the nomination. You aren't banned from working in the same areas, just from each other. However, I would suggest you do yourself a favor and just follow the ban as rigidly and completely as you can imagine it being interpreted because that is usually how the community feels about these things and they (and I) have very little patience for anyone who tries to test the boundaries of a sanction.

You must be aware that the vast majority of users are able to contribute without needing any limited bans on them. As I discovered when logging this iban at WP:RESTRICT you are now subject to at least three different sanctions like this. You may want to consider adjusting your approach to Wikipedia. Prolific contributors of content are generally given considerable leeway, but if your editing has to be restricted again and again because of your behavior you may eventually find that you have exhausted the collective patience of the community and are no longer welcome. That is a situation we would all like to avoid, but it is entirely in your hands.

Interaction and topic bans are not a puzzle for you to try and resolve, they are supposed to be a message to you that you are doing something very wrong and you need to stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Fake Game show pages in user space

Hi.

You indicated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EmperorPoe that the fake game show pages are usually speedily deleted on site. I actually nominated a whole bunch of them recently. Should I go back a re-tag them for speedy deletion? regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As these pages basically present fantasy made-up game shows as if they are real, they qualify as hoaxes. I know speedy deletion is normally not supposed to include reasons from WP:NOT, but if a users' only interest in Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST I don't see why we need t spend a week having a discussion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. In fact if you want to just post a list here I'll zap them myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MFD currently has a bunch of these pages listed, some of them nominated by me, some nominated by other editors. My list of obviously non-conformant pages are:

Cheers. -- Whpq (talk)

All these are now

Deleted and the mfds closed. I may take a look at the rest later. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhisaya Ulagam 3D (2nd nomination)

Might you care to withdraw with the strong suggestion that this article on a released and reviewed film be improved over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a great search engine for Indian topics linked over WP:INDAFD. When it is working, it has proven invaluable. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I figured you must be using something I was not aware of although I still wonder why just searching ToI itself didn't work. As I recall I got a mountain of false positives for some other movie with a similar name. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Be well

. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

All it took was a lttle love. MUCH better now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice

You did exactly what I was trying to do, but failed to accomplish. Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit confused myself for a minute there, as I thought that for whatever reason only admins can create edit notice pages. Then I realized it was not in the correct namespace and was not displaying when one went to edit the page. Still not sure if a non-admin can do that, I think that might have changed at some point in the last year or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusion

[1] Thanks for unbanning me, 2nd thing, what you meant by "if i saw you into edit war"..

Well, suppose, i make edit, someone put warning on my page for "disruptive editing", and you will ban permanently? Thanks, let me know. Justicejayant (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, you have been previously blocked six times for edit warring. You should know what it is by now but perhaps you should read WP:EW, which is the Wikipedia policy on edit warring. This is why you kept getting blocked before, and if you do it again I will re-instate the block that was just lifted. I would also suggest you read WP:BRD which is advice on how to edit properly without edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, whenever i will face such situation, i will notify you, ok? So you can better tell me what to do, since you know better at this moment.Justicejayant (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You should not need to notify me or anyone else in order to avoid edit warring, just don't do it. I urge you to read the material I linked to in my previous post. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting "List of baseball player nicknames" page to "List of baseball nicknames"

Hi, I noticed that you redirected [of baseball player nicknames] to "List of baseball nicknames". Although I agree with your reason for the redirect, would it be better to merge the two lists? There may be names on the first list that are not in the second and vice versa. Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging would indeed be a good idea and can be done by anyone who desires to do so by accessing the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PIE

Horatio Snickers has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Here is a pie for you. Any time is a good time for pie.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Self Promoting sites of people with no notoriety

Why are you not allowing the deletion of pages which are clearly self-promoting and are of people of no notoriety? Surely, this is a clear breach of wikipedia terms. If not, everyone could just stick their CV (resume) on to wikipedia. Example is Matt_Bullock. Please advise what the difference is between this page and someone just paraphrasing their CV onto a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.255.142 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Because we have rules for deletion processes and admins are expected to follow them. You first nominated it as WP:CSD#A7, which means that the article does not assert the importance of the person. Be aware this is not the same as proving notability, all that the article needs is a claim of importance and it cannot be deleted under that criterion. That was the reason for the first decline, which you chose to revert and then add WP:CSD#G11 , which is for unambiguous advertising or promotion. While this is admittedly a somewhat subjective standard it is only meant to be used in the most blatant cases and I do not believe this is such a case. Declining a speedy deletion is not the same thing as endorsing the existence of an item, it merely means that in my judgement as a site administrator I do not believe it meets the criteria you specified. As I noted in my edit sumarry when declining the second time, you are still perfectly free to pursue other deletion measures such as proposed deletion or a deletion discussion. However, as an IP user you woul need someone else to create the discussion age for you. If you need that done let me know and I can do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel da Silva (actor)

Hi, I chose your name at random from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active . There is an AfD that has been going on for over a week, and I was wondering if, as an uninvolved admin, you could close it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_da_Silva_(actor) . Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Justicejayant

It seems this editor has gone straight back to their previous edit warring behaviour. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I never re-inserted any of the text which you removed, So how it's a edit war? Plus i opened discussion 2 hours before i would add anything next, and till how haven't added anything back. Justicejayant (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, Just saw the talk page, I think you should had added the talk back template on my page, so i wouldn't be adding back, anyways, it was only 1 revert, an accident, rather that i had any intention for doing so, so kindly forget, i will better remember next time :), hope the case is closed. Justicejayant (talk 11:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not referring to your reversions after my edit, as can be seen from my link above I was referring to your reinsertion of the material that User:Blackguard SF had reverted, without you waiting for a response from that editor on the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point, kindly leave me a reminder next time, so i won't be doing such mistake, right now, making a default page. We can carry on the discussion at the article's page. Justicejayant (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Rollback privileges

Thank you so much for granting me the privileges. -- L o g X 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

W.A.K.O.-W.K.J.F. World Championships 2004 (Ylta)

There were two other articles in the AfD debate - are they also to be deleted?Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Meant to go back and do them, and just forgot apparently. thanks for the reminder,

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CheersPeter Rehse (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John. Thank you. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot sig [2]NE Ent 22:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. But you're going to make SineBot feel unneeded and he will cry little robot tears... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine block

The comment you made here on Liz's talk page [3] -- is inconsistent with the stated block reason of disruptive editing. Is the block, which per policy should be non-punitive -- intended to stop disruption because of her interaction in non article space, or to spot a blocked / banned editor from evading a sanction?

Of course you know there's no such thing as a "community block, " right? The AN/I consensus was for a block for her to stop going on about Reaper Eternal -- a commitment she had already made. [4] The was no consensus for a ban that would require community consensus to overturn. Any admin who accepts her unblock request could unblock her. (Whether or no such an admin exists I don't know.) NE Ent 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The logged reason is the reason for the block, I was simply trying to provide some perspective with those remarks they are in no way an expanded block rationale, just some thoughts on what an account that acts like this is almost always really about. I don't really feel like debating any of the rest of this but I do believe there is a strong precedent for community-based blocks. Remember that policies are supposed to describe what is done, not dictate what must be done. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I just noticed this morning that Bonkers the Clown, who was also blocked "by community consensus", the same day as L'Origine, is now unblocked so I guess it's a simpler process to undo a community block than I thought. It doesn't require going back to AN/I and starting up a debate on the merits of unblocking an Editor, it can be brought up on an Editor's Talk Page by an Admin who believes that the Editor will not misbehave in the future. So, unlike my earlier understanding, it's not impossible to overturn.

NE Ent, it's interesting to hear your take on this, that there actually isn't anything such as a "community block". I'm not sure if this makes things clearer to me or more murkier. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The blocking admin of Bonkers, when asked, indicated the block was on that admin's own authority, and that it was not an implementation of consensus from the block discussion. Even if it had been a consensus block, the later decision to unblock can be a separate question, looking at the post block actions of the blocked editor. Only if the block is overturned as invalid or wrong would the overturn risk being against the block consensus. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Monty, that just makes things even more confusing. Suppose, there is a discussion about blocking me on AN/I because I ask too many damn questions. Everyone is all riled up and asking for my head on a stick. Then, I receive an indefinite block. Now, you tell me that it can either be A) an Admin blocking all by him/herself or B) an Admin acting on what they perceive to be "community consensus". "A" is simple to overturn if I can persuade the Admin to unblock me because I won't be so irritating but "B" requires a return to AN/I, is that correct?

The problem is that the block looks the same, whether it is "A" or "B". The only way to distinguish between the two, and enormous difference that they can make with the unblocking process, is to know the Admin's intentions when they imposed the block which they can choose to disclose or to keep to themselves.

Now, I AGF of Editors and Admins, but that is a quicksand of ambiguity, to have one person's understanding of the reasons why they imposed a block and their willingness to share that reason, determine my prospects of overturning my block. Maybe that's just reality and what we have to live with as Editors, but that makes me very wary and uncomfortable. That is a lot more power over Editors than I thought Admins had. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) In one sense, there really can't be such a thing as a community block, because only one person actually makes the block itself. Situations like Murder on the Orient Express notwithstanding of course. Having said that, it looks like Beeblebrox was attempting to say something to the effect that he thought the block he placed was based on community consensus, and there is more than sufficient precedent for that. In a case like that, someone might, maybe a bit less than completely legalistically, describe something as being a "community" block, as an indicator that he might have been acting on what he perceived as community consensus. Under the circumstances, I can see someone using such language in a block, because there is precedent for it. Of course, as per WP:CCC, consensus can change, and it can and sometimes is the case that shortly thereafter consensus is to have the block lifted. That happens. We ain't perfect, sometimes the evidence presented is biased or deliberately misrepresentative or whatever at least initially, and we take that into account at times too. Unfortuntely, if we all waited until such time as everyone had spoken and all possible evidence from all possible involved parties is presented, there's a really good chance some trolls would stay unblocked for years. There even are at least a few cases where people regularly called "trolls" or worse have some admins who might unblock them immediately, for possibly biased reasons. Unfortunately. Yeah, shit happens once in a while here, but that isn't reason to not act when there seems to be sufficient cause to do so.

Regarding the "quicksand of ambiguity," sometimes that is unavoidable. I remember sending an e-mail to ArbCom from someone who sent me an e-mail in which he explicitly stated that he had been interviewed in several media about the subject of an article about which he was in dispute, in effect declaring a huge conflict of interests as per WP:COI on that topic, but I couldn't tell anyone that, because that would be disclosing a personal communication. And, yeah, I still can't say who that was. So, yeah, sometimes, particularly in matters regarding oversight or some other comparatively private communications, we never do know all the details, even if we wish that weren't the case. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, John, I never actually envied the responsibilities an Admin has, how often they end up spending more time on User Talk Pages explaining things than actually working on the encyclopedia. I always look at folks' Edit Stats when I check out their profile and it's clear that having Admin duties frequently takes up most of the time that the Editor used to spend on editing and creating articles.

But my lingering question is, you also say that there is no such thing as a "community block". So, given the "B" scenario that I described, when an Admin imposes an indefinite block based on what they believe is community consensus, what is required to unblock the person? How does an blocked Editor get community consensus to become unblocked? Or is actually A=B in practice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing we're talking about User:L'Origine du monde, who's request to be unblocked was just declined by User:AGK? Considering the statements AGK made in declining the block, I would assume, in this case, that the best way for this person to be unblocked would be (first option) to appeal it, possibly directly to ArbCom, or to leave a request for broader review on their talk page, which they can still apparently edit; or, second better option, do the above but also clearly state that they would be willing to accept some conditions regarding the lifting of the block, like a topic ban from a known problem area and/or adoption. Those are actually more or less the terms Bus stop agreed to to get his block lifted. Unfortunately, he had a longer history on wikipedia, and had done a bit more editing to areas other than his problem one, so that weighed in his favor then. I'm not necessarily sure the same would work for L'Origine, but it would probably be their best bet. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To run with your example Liz, say there is a discussion, and the overwhelming majority of the community decides an indef block is justified, you never defend yourself, its closed as block, and an admin blocks you. A week later, I notice your unblock request, in version A, you say that you don't ask too many questions, and that the block was unjustified. In version B, you say that you realize you ask too many questions, and propose that as a condition of unblock, you will preclear all questions with widely trusted editor Joe Somebody. In version A, to unblock you I would need to go against consensus; consensus was you asked too many questions, and the only justification for unblock you have offered is that you in fact don't ask too many questions. If I unblocked under those circumstances, I'd probably be in hot water. But in version B, you have offered a solution that may allow you to return to editing, without the reason for the block being an issue going forward. As you didn't defend yourself before the block, and didn't propose that then, there is no consensus whether your proposal is a good idea or a bad one. Now I could take it back to AN, and have a discussion, but I'm not required to, and If I feel your trustworthy and I'm willing to stick my neck out a bit, I can just unblock you subject to the condition. Its only REALLY binding if, after my bad unblock, there is a community consensus to overturn my unblock and reinstate the block. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly i just don't know anymore. This seemed a perfectly logical requirement to me when adding to the block notice but apparently it isn't so clear cut. i have opened a discussion of the broader issue at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting copy of a deleted article

Hi, I come to you because I saw in the RC that you are active, and when I looked at your userpage I saw that you are one of the Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I am planning to recreate the previously deleted article about Philip Patston. I see that article was deleted by editor PeaceNT, who hasn't been active since 22 December 2012. I was wondering if you could provide a copy of the previous contents of that page via email so that I can see what was there as I begin creating this article again, from reliable sources. Thanks in advance for your help. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What I am seeing is that the article was deleted as a copyright violation. It was apparently a word-for-word copy of an old version of this website, there were no sources cited at all and it was in a tone that was pretty innapropriate for an encyclopedia article. So, I don't think there is really anything there that is would be useful in trying to recreate it but if you really want to see it I can still email it to you although obviously it would no t be good to reproduce any of it in the new version. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. If it was entirely word-for-word from the website, then I don't need a copy of it. As you can probably see on my own AfC page on Meta-Wiki, I have been collecting secondary sources to cite in the new article about Philip. Also, I have no COI with this article, as my only interest is that my wife went to school with him, and I have met him personally a few times. Again, thanks for your time looking into this. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)