Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

Orphaned non-free image File:Richard Ivey School of Business logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Ivey School of Business logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Howzitgoing?

Here is a message that's not from a Kumioko sock. How you doing, Beeblebrox? Have y'all had daylight yet? Take it easy, and thanks for sucking it up for the rest of us. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. Actually we are at just over 19 hours of daylight right now. Doing good, just spent a week out in the woods and floating around on lakes. After fifteen years here I finally saw a Kenai Peninsula wolf in the wild that was extremely cool. Although it was probably wandering around by itself because the Funny River Fire, which burned an area larger than the city of Chicago, displaced it. And thanks to my awesome talk page stalkers I haven't actually read a single word of the sock nonsense going on here. So overall doing good, although I am currently in the middle of drafting my first ArbCom decision and it is a pain. Not that anyone said being an arb would be easy... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

American politics Proposed decision

I would post this on the page, but this is more a personnel matter. I am going to be very busy until the weekend. I was wondering if there would be any findings and remedies that directly deal with me? I just want to know, so I can try to respond.Casprings (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The draft is almost done, and right now there is not anything specifically pertaining to you, but I can't say for a certainty until my co-drafter finishes up their part of it. So I guess "probably not" is the best answer I can give. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
So I am apparently the lone offender? Seriously biased I have to say. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer to discuss arbitration business on the case talk pages, but I note the irony that you have demonstrated the very behavior you are being sanctioned for in this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What behaviour? You wrote the proposal and the origianl request was from an RfC which I have not broken. Casprings submitted because I was not blocked because of that RfC and the Arbitration was accepted to cover general issues. You made it very specific to me. Can you honestly say that I have done anything since that RfC which would cause your proposal? Arzel (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, I would prefer to have this discussion at the actual arbitration case pages, and in fact we have both already commented there so I don't see any need to have a secondary discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DS request based on pending American politics case

I have a question here about the status of discretionary sanctions and the scope of the American politics case. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. Out of curiosity, do you know if DS have ever been used to apply to an open case? Just wondering... Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Rovine

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Rovine. Thanks. Rovinemessage 20:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Confession0791 talk 00:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Eloquence's user rights

Eloquence has [global] staff user rights, which includes "Edit all user rights (userrights)". As the VP Engineering, he also has root access and could remove userrights from that point. You'll have to go to Meta to look at the group, it's not accessible on this project. Risker (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I figured it must be something like that. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Rijinatwiki's talk page.
Message added 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rijin (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback on ADN/AK Dispatch News article

Hi there,

I wrestled with the newly titled Alaska Dispatch News article (redirect from the ADN article). Could you take a look at the "Controversy" section and see if a better solution to a Wikipedia sourcing problem than that which I have used might replace mine? Before my edits, the section bordered on unreadable. I sent this same note to Radio KAOS. Activist (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom keeps me pretty busy these days but I'll try to find some time to have a look at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete request

This article was created by a user you blocked two years ago for disruptive editing. While, strictly speaking, it is not inaccurate, the article was pretty clearly written with political intent and should be deleted as such (I have explained further on the talk page). Thank you.--68.61.5.58 (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I tagged it A7, I hope I'm correct (not that proficient with CSD's as of yet) Mlpearc (open channel) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's actually a G10 (negative unsourced BLP) because there's not a single reference on that page. Deleted. Risker (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I thought of that but, I was thinking a single person. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like my work here is done... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

"move along"
Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for clear language and reflection, for closing, quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 April 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 553rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the Above (Serbia)

Hi. Back in November, you speedied None of the Above (Serbia) as G10. Since I can't see the article, could you please re-check if it wasn't just a vandalized page, and if there's something salvageable in its history? Or the article was just a negative slant about them? I ask because they're a relatively notable, parliamentary party, so I'd expect that article to have been created by someone in the know. Regards, No such user (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It was created as basically several sentences consisting of the creating user's opinion of their activities, which were pretty negative, and no sources. The only other edits related to what criterion might be used to speedy delete it. This user was creating many articles on minor Serbian political parties, all of which seem to have been deleted. I think it would be easier to start from scratch. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

hey

(thread moved from top of page Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC))


The edit i made to fireblazer isn't vandalism because he's actually my friend . You can confirm this with him. Thank you. P.S. Please reconsider your decision . If I do anything wrong, you can take my rights away. Matheweditking (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Being your friend doesn't make it ok to create a page with nonsense on it. Another user came along and cleaned up the mess you made, so you wasted that user's time with your nonsense. And you just flat out do not have enough experience, despite your grandiose claims, to be granted any advanced permissions at this time. Also, you don't appear to even know how to use a talk page properly, and effective communication is a vital part of vandal fighting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

I wasn't sure if WP:RPP was an appropriate venue so I thought I'd ask a friendly admin this instead: please could you indefinitely semi-protect my userpage? The (admittedly occasional) vandalism is becoming rather tiresome. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Also, you can request stuff like this at RPP. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

MyDala

Hi Beeblebrox, there is a draft article at AfC, Draft:Mydala, which seems adequately sourced to move to mainspace. However, you speedy deleted it in 2010 and you may have SALT'd the title. Can you de-SALT Mydala so I can move the draft to mainspace? Sionk (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Anchorage to do list

As Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/to do was for the most part still stuck in 2006, I took the initiative to redo it. Any suggestions, what I missed, etc.? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty thorough to me. Two things did jump out at me in the article though. One is that the "cityscape" photo has it's own section. It's a nice image and should probably stay but having it's own section is just weird. The other is the see also link to "List of aerospace museums". Not sure why that is there.
As it happens I am going to be in Anchorage for about 24 hours next week. If there are any images that you think we could use I can maybe take some pictures while I'm there. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding delay in looking after the requests for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer ‎

Hi, Beeblebrox, Please look after the reviewer permission requests on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer ‎ page.Mine and other 3 editors requests are pending.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to being an administrator, I am a member of the WP:ARBCOM, which has a lot of business in front of it right now. I also have a real job and a social life of my own. I don't get paid any more than you do for my work here and helping out at WP:PERM is someityhing I do when I have the time and the inclination to do so. I don't have either right at the moment. Please don't bother individual admins with impatient requests like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I will not ask any administrator about that.I understand that administrators have more work to do than accepting or declining requests.I will remain patient.Anyways, Thank you for your help and sorry again for any inconvenience caused.--Param Mudgal (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal: I glanced at your request yesterday - I had typed up a decline, but forgot to save before I had seen the above. Not sure you fully understand what reviewer is/does/is for. I highly recommend forum-shopping to get your request answered - it's considered bad form around here, and typically gets you the opposite of what you want the panda ₯’ 10:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I respect your opinion but i feel that i understand what reviewer is/does for.I understand what are edits in good faith and what edits are done to vandalise wikipedia. And i also know that without the support of my fellow editors and administrators i cant achieve anything here.You are an experienced editor and if you think that i cant handle the responsibility of a reviewer , i will respect your decision and work hard and request again in future but i will not let myself down, that i assure you. Thank you.--Param Mudgal (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal: With all due respect, the comment "without the support of my fellow editors and administrators i cant achieve anything here" is, well, wrong. You are an individual. Admins just have tools - most editors never have to interact with one of them in an admin capacity. 90% of editors never gain an "advanced" permission yet move the yardsticks on Wikipedia every day. the panda ₯’ 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: No No, you're getting me wrong, I just wanted to say that wikipedia can maintain its quality content with the teamwork of all editors and administrators.I was not saying that individually we cant set an impact here.I was just promoting teamwork here. Nothing else.Thank you.--Param Mudgal (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Any idea why I keep getting "John Kassir was linked from..." notifications? - Amaury (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to adjust your preferences. Under the notifications settings there is an option for getting alerted to article links. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you. Strange, though. I don't think I created the John Kassir article. - Amaury (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. You moved it back in 2009. Apparently, even though it was moved again, that made you the creator in the eyes of WP:ECHO. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. And that was back in my immature days. ;) - Amaury (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hi - I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but could you do a user check at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varda_Kotler on users MusiqueEnthusiasm (talk • contribs) and Guillaume261086 (talk • contribs) who are advancing suspiciously similar, and specious, reasons, in defence of the article in question? The detail of (not cogent) material they are supplying also makes me think there is a vested interest here. Neither of them has ever made any other contribution to WP apart from defending this article. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid only have checkuser access in case I need it to review material presented in an arbitration case, I am not an active user of the tool. I would suggest filing at WP:SPI, from what you say you may not even need a checkuser, many such cases are decided purely on behavioral evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this, I will go to WP:SPI as you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Caribou / Reindeer merge

I see that you may not see this for some time, but I'll leave a comment anyway. Since you were the one who proposed the merge (and I agree it should be done), wouldn't it make more sense to merge back to the main Reindeer article, rather than the other direction? Quite a bit of the content in the Caribou article (a solo project) was literally "stolen" (I AGF that it wasn't done maliciously), without attribution, from the Reindeer article anyway. I have restored that deleted content to the reindeer article, without doing anything with the caribou article. The main Reindeer article should be able to cover the entire Rangifer tarandus subject, while still allowing some subarticles for specific subspecies. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Asscrack

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/New Year's Eve (film)

Hi Beeblebrox. I believe this editnotice (which you created) is no longer required (it expired on 1 March 2013 and the film was released in 2011). If you agree, are you happy to delete it? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Cash L3wis

Hi Beeblebrox, I think that the article you edited Cash L3wis may be not referenced, but it's notable. Please mark the subject as reviewed and let me work in it. You are open to help too! Have a great day. Karlhard (talk to me) 01:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All biographies of living persons must have appropriate references to reliable sources. That is why we have the WP:BLPPROD process, which I used to nominate it. All you have to do is find one single reliable source to attach to it. If that can't be found within the next week it will be deleted. I'm afraid this is one of the firmer rules around here, both for the integrity of the project and the protection of article subjects. I did do a quick search myself and came up empty. As someone with more of an interest in the subject you may have more luck with more specialized searches. Good luck. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Looks its been over 4 days...first day & first edit 14 October, 2014...second 15 October...third 16 October and fourth October 17. and today 18 october. can you please looks into this Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing to look into. It takes 4 entire days (96 hours), not four calendar days. You were just autoconfirmed in the last few hours, exactly as I said you would be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick response & Stephen Colbert

Thank you for your quick response. I understand about verification of sources and the like but I was referencing Stephen Colbert's height only because it was verified by the man himself. If you'd like a laugh check it out; http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qw8rwv/who-s-attacking-me-now----larry-page - it's great! Then, after you've finished watching the clip open a google page and search "How tall is Stephen Colbert?" to continue your laugh. Have a good one!

Jamintexas (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am very aware of Stephen Colbert and have enjoyed his work for some time now. However, on his show he is acting as a satirist, not a reporter of fact, and the bit you refer to is about Google, Wikipedia articles generally do not discuss the subject's height unless it is part of the reason they are notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP ban

Can you clarify here that the enacted ban is from BLP related edits and not just articles, so that there is no future wiki-lawyering on the issue? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the formal notification I left on his talk age makes tha pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Good close. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On a related matter, are there going to be any warnings, cautions, or whatever is done in such cases, given to Gamaliel for his out-of-process administrative actions regarding Andyvphil? Believe me when I say, I have no love lost on Avp, but there are more unclean hands than his in this matter. LHMask me a question 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said when I closed the thread, the consensus seems to be that his response to these events, wherein he acknowledged and apologized for his errors, was sufficient. If you are aware of a more long-term issue involving his use of admin tools, beyond the incident that was the subject of the just-closed discussion, I would advise you to pursue a WP:RFC/U. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
While I disagree with the characterization of Gamaliel's note as an "apology", I appreciate your quick reply. I have no interest in initiating an RFC/U, as I don't think it would ultimately result in any meaningful action. Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. LHMask me a question 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you not answer the question, or don't you want to?

You answered questions above and below it... direct link to the question. Samsara 16:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, one of the first things most people pick up here is that we should assume good faith and not instantly go for the worst possible interpretation of another user's actions. Like maybe instead of deliberately ignoring you or not actually knowing the answer, maybe I just didn't notice it in the middle of a major policy discussion. You might find that other users respond more agreeably to your questions of you ask them politely instead of being aggressive and accusatory.
The answer to your question is that it would be basically the same as the process currently used to chose functionaries. I have edited the proposal to clarify this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"View history" v. "Page history"

I've requested an edit on MediaWiki talk:Vector-view-history to change the wording from "View" to "Page" to make it clearer for readers that the link takes them to the history of the page instead of the history of the topic. I know I was slightly confused the very first time I clicked the link and saw all kinds of technical garble and not the topic history I expected and I have talked to others that couldn't fathom ever editing, but do look stuff up from time to time and are confused by it as well. While I agree the original reason for the proposal (the gender bias crud) was ludicrous at best, I think the discussion had turned to a more logical idea of changing the wording (which would have still left "history" in the wording) to be less confusing to readers. I'd love if you would weigh in on the edit request (feel free to carry it out or to close it pending further discussion). Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, i know you and some others were trying to steer the discussion away from the original request and I certainly have no objection to anyone having a new discussion about the issue you bring up, I just felt that that particular thread, framed as it was, needed to go. I think you should have a that discussion actually because it is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to make that edit unless they are sure it has consensus behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please unprotect

Nearly 3 years ago, you protected V Australia. Unnecessary as there hasn't even been an edit in 6 weeks. Please undo it or let me know the reason why you think it should remain locked. If you think that all articles should be protected, let me know. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you know enough to find the page log and see who protected it, you should also be able to see that there is only move protection due to it being moved several times without much discussion. As you have not started a discussion of a requested move I see no compelling reason to remove the protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi Beeblebrox, Sorry for the trouble. You previously participated in a related AfD discussion. Thought you might be interested. Becky Sayles (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014

I thought I should make it known on-wiki that I will not be running for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. It's not any one thing or person, it's a lot of little things that, taken together, make me believe it is time for me to move on. If I had been elected to a two-year term I would have served the whole thing, but I got a one-year term. While there are two one-year terms up for grabs this time, there is also the possibility that I would get elected to a new two-year term and thus end up dedicating three years of my efforts for this project to arbcom work. Arbcom is much more of an obligation than any other volunteer position here and I have tried to give it the attention it is due, slashing my watchlist down to almost nothing (outside of dozens of arbitration-related pages) and not engaging in the day-to-day operations of the oversight team, who are currently experiencing severe backlogs and need experienced hands to help out.

In other words, I'd rather do what I was doing before.

I will take with me a much better understanding of exactly how the committee operates and what its strengths and weaknesses are and hopefully this knowledge will aid me in the future. Although I sometimes disagreed with my colleagues and much of what I hoped to accomplish as an arb has not come to pass I wish all the other arbs, present and future, nothing but the best.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will consider running again. I supported your candidacy last year (I was 8 for 9!), and fwiw, I think you have the potential to be one of the best arbs ever. Ignocrates (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

GGTF comment

I am sure you have reasons you consider sound for abstaining on the GGTF ban !vote on Eric Corbett, but I am just popping by to state my opinion that he should not be banned, and that it would be a travesty were he to be banned due to abstentions who might otherwise oppose. Seems to me that when in doubt, just vote no. You can, of source, state your caveats and concerns. I just feel that abstaining in this case is simply a yes vote by default. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see this comment I made with my first abstention. I am not voting due to what may be perceived as a bias against Eric. Also see this remark about another party to the case, which may give you some idea of how I would have voted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your gracious explanation. I understand your position. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hi Beeblebrox, now that my name has been cleared, will you restore my User:Baaarny/Research sandbox page please as the reason you gave for its deletion is now no longer valid. Baaarny (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am forced to agree that that specific rationale for deletion no longer appears valid I have to ask exactly what the purpose of this "research" is as it appears it may violate WP:POLEMIC and/or WP:USERBIO. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't remember the exact contents of it now. Will you email the complete page to me so I can review it. I can then decide whether to keep it offline, or in a new sandbox, bearing in mind WP:POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO. Baaarny (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, will you email it to me please so I can see if there's anything useful in it? Baaarny (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable with that. It looks to me like a "shit list" with details regarding which users you had issues with. That is something to be discouraged, not enabled. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you refusing to email it to me so that I can read it off-Wiki to remind myself exactly what was on it? Baaarny (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanation?

Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining your statement here? [2] What specific edits do you object to? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are, at least here on Wikipedia, the type of person who cannot see the forest through the trees, who is so utterly convinced of the rightness of their position that they will use any argument, no matter how illogical, to avoid taking responsibility for their own errors. That being the case I have no appetite for getting involved in a point-by-point debate with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Some very serious accusations have been made against me here, by you, in your official capacity. If my actions have not been in accordance with policy, surely you can cite a particular diff or statement of mine that you found to be of concern. Seriously, if I have done something improper, I would like the opportunity to either repair it, or provide more diffs to defend whatever it is I am supposed to have done. —Neotarf (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Kumioko/Reguyla

I'm soooo done, if he will just stop with the nuisance pings.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I asked him on his talk page to never contact me again, and he posted a very nice sounding reply about leaving the past in the past and wanting to get along. As I promised I would not contact him again I am not replying there, but here are some illuminating details:

  • Excerpt from an email sent from the Reguyla account on July 29, 2014:

"All you have done is turn me against the project... I did more for this project than you or any of the clowns who voted to ban me from the project and since its obvious at this point I will never be allowed back thanks to you and your fellow assholes and arbitraitors, you deserve every word of the term. FUCK You!"

  • This was the only email I recall getting, but other arbs whose email addresses were known to him received dozens of similarly abusive emails.
  • He also vandalized/trolled this very talk page at least ten times during the first half of this year, along with other arbitrator's talk pages.
  • I don't participate on Wikipediocracy but I do sometimes read it. His remarks over there directly contradict this new "leave things in the past" persona he is pretending to here.
  • And finally: We have some very technically minded arbs this year. I won't say what it was, but he made a mistake and we know he faked the email that was supposedly sent to his employer. Not only was arbcom not involved, it didn't happen at all.

So, I think the community is making a serious error in judgement in even considering allowing him back. But the community will do what it wants and life's too short to spend any more of my time reading his screeds full of assumptions of bad faith, ironic from someone who earlier this year repeatedly promised to be the worst troll and sockmaster WP has ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There's even more, and I have the diffs, but never mind. However, it's high time somebody finally pulled the plug on his talk page. It's now being used as a general launch pad for PA at admins with impunity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Both of you need to drop the sticks and back away. If Reguyla is 1/10th as bad as you say, there will be plenty of people who will happily do something about it. Your continued interaction with him, even by way of this thread, is doing nothing but fanning the flames. If you truly want the bad behavior to stop, you have to stop doing things that will do nothing but make the situation worse. The above conversation does exactly that. Beeblebrox, you asked him not to interact with you, and then you mount this thread here? Really? Could this conversation not have been done privately for some reason, but instead had to be done in the open which guarantees to make the situation worse? Just drop it. The world isn't going to end, and neither is Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear you and I more or less agree. Since he has managed to alter the public narrative about his circumstances through deception, I expected there would be some users who would wonder why I reacted so harshly to simply being pinged, and I merely meant to answer them preemptively. Perhaps I should have waited for someone to actually ask. Expect no further comments from me on the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember the examples of the nasty comments you and the other arbs got from reg that you posted during his unban discussion. Asking not to be contacted is not unreasonable. Chillum 20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get to "do something about" a liar, in this instance, but I have watched what Beeblebrox rightly described as deliberate attempts to "alter the public narrative" on an external site. (The most recent attempt to continue re-writing reality there, was less than an hour ago.) I am sure this will continue, and I would advise thoughtful participants to think twice before giving any sort of credence to liars who frequent those sort of sites. Fortunately or otherwise for such people, I have mentioned this discussion on Carrite's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, the "people who frequent such sites" include me, NYB, Worm, and Casliber too. Honestly, I can see thinking twice about anything I might say, but the three others are all active or former arbs. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not your being there. It's your behaviour while you are there. As I have made very clear. Sorry, but you are responsible for your own actions whether you like it or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I will add this. You, John Carter, can choose to disown the liar if you choose to do so. I am shocked that you have not yet done so. I, like others, will await honesty. I am shocked that anyone even takes you seriously if you continue to support the lying account. You will feel better if you are honest; your shame will be reduced by your efforts to be honest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Either Kumioko/Reguyla's is being stubborn or he has RL mental problems. Anyways, it might be something for Arbcom to look into, if the wiki-community isn't able to handle it. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What seems to get lost here is that it was the community banned him, he appealed to BASC, BASC said no, at which point he proceeded to engage in a sustained campaign of harassment of arbs (even those not involved in BASC) because they refused to overturn the community's decision. Then, somehow, he managed to turn around and use a sock to appeal to the community again and that's how we got where we are now. I'm certainly not going to speculate on his mental health. No offense, but I don't want this conversation to go on any further as I really am trying to disengage here, so I'm going to close this right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (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.

FYI

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of an Arb

:I don't generally discuss arbcom business on my talk page. If you have something to say about the proposed decision feel free to do so on it's talk page . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, so I skimmed through the proposed decision, nice work, but I have a problem, for the first hours I thought I wasn't getting sanctioned so I stopped paying attention, but then I read someone had proposed a topic ban against me, and a SPA accusation (which I don't really understand the reasoning) anyway I came to know of remakrs done by the proposer Arb and voter to ban me that seriously begs to question his/her neutrality, seeing that all the votes against users like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel are oppose and users like me, TitaniumDragon, DungeonSiege, etc are in favor. This isn't the problem, and I think I can send you this by email if it violates a rule, but the Arb seems to have a strong position regarding GamerGate, and gender politics in general. Anyway I realize there are 4 other arbs voting to ban me, again, for being a SPA, which as my contributions history shows, is in my opinion not the case (but this isn't the point), I feel personally not being given a fair judgement when one of them seems to have their personal opinions or idelogy come first instead of their unbiased interpretations and applications of Wikipedia rules, and I think he/she should reccuse from voting in this case to not further damage the image of the project. I could send the evidence by email. Thanks!

It's also worth noting this user already recussed themselves on the discussion to take the case so he/she even admits to this. Loganmac (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Now I've come to find that ANOTHER voter has strong positions regarding GamerGate, this is seriously making me ashamed. Again all votes against Ryulong, NorhBySouth and Gamaliel are Opposes and for TitaniumDragon, et al. Supports, please let me email you this Loganmac (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconcile this statement with your colleagues actions

I didn't pay any attention to the gamer gate case, although I I did try to edit the article once, but decided it was too toxic. I saw the proposed decision b/c I watch NB's talk page, and I noticed this comment of yours in the workshop. Do you not feel you and your colleagues should be held to a similar standard? Is there something in the deliberation process that leads to 11th hour results? (Two kinds of pork 07:52, 21 January 2015‎)

It's not a question about the case per se, but rather about the overall process, which should be applicable across all cases. Is it fair to say appears you dont look kindly towards 11th hour "filings" (for the lack of a better word)?

Am I particularly happy with the way the PD has evolved in the last 48 hours or so = no
Am I interested in having a discussion about how a quote from me about evidence submissions (which happen on a deadline basis, making them different from a proposed decision) applies to this situation = no
I hope that clears matters up for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Not really, but perhaps I'm not being clear. I want to know why you find the last minute filing an issue for an editor, and have stated so for everyone to see, but yet we don't hear a peep when your colleagues on Arbcom, pull the same sort of shenanigans. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So I take it by your silence you don't want to address your own hypocrisy?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to explain their administrative actions when asked. Are Arbitrators not held to the same standard?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


The unblockables

Excellent essay man, often when you meet them and try reporting them, the discussion will usually shift to the one reporting getting banned Loganmac (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently. Maybe when I'm not an arb anymore I will share my own thoughts on the GGTF decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you integrate this essay , Wikipedia:No get out of jail free cards? --evrik (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've kept it this way because it's a user essay and hadn't seemed to attract much attention up until now (it's been there almost four years). I also keep it in my userspace because I wrote it to reflect my opinion. I have seen folks move their user essays out into project space, only to see them modified over time into compromised, waffling writing as everyone tried to make it conform to what they think. If this level of attention is anything more than a brief uptick because of the Slate thing I may at least give it a talk page though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry.65.29.77.61 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Wikipedia is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Disregard that loser, he seems to have decided to make an actual account and be constructive. Though his edits completely suck and he doesn't know half of what he's doing. But spamming Random Article till you find something interesting to change can be ok. FlossumPossum (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, none of us knew what we were doing when we started out. I used to hit the random article button a lot more before I became an admin, you never know what weird thing you will find with it. It's the "gateway drug" of Wikipedia addiction. Next thing you know you'll be patrolling recent changes, and then requesting advanced permisssions and before you know it will be seven years from now and you'll have 33 pages of talk archives like I do... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Credits

Sure ! Usually, I always do this and that at the creation of the page. I'm sorry to have forget to do it before you asked !
Thanks for you essay. I hope that it will help us. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

2015 already (well, here at least)

Hi Beeb. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and welcome back to the madhouse. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite back to normal as I am doing one last, particularly horrible arbcom case. I can't wait to take all this arbitration stuff back off my watchlist . Hope all is going well out there in the jungle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello there! I need an administrator's assistance. I recently edited the article Oobi at Work and added a list of episodes with a source. However, a ClueBot reverted my edit. My username is new here on Wikipedia but I have been editing as an anonymous user until I realised I wanted to become a real user, so I am familiar with this kind of thing, but I would still like to know whether or not you think the list I added is wrongly done. I've seen some pages with all-out boxes for episodes, but some pages (like Didi and B.) listed them the way I did. Please give me any opinions! Derbundeskanzler (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. ClueBot is designed to remove vandalism, and your edit doesn't look like that. I would suggest you report it at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ban

Hi, an indefinite topic ban is too harsh. A definite ban of say 6 months would have sufficed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94 is of course correct, I merely closed the discussion and informed you of the result, it was not my decision and consensus was nearly unanimous. I would, however, add that indefinite does not mean infinite and if you follow the advice I gave on your talk page you could find the ban lifted in less than six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

1


Talk:Gordon B. Hinkley

Re:this edit of yours from 23:03, 16 January 2015‎ — The auto archive was working just fine: if you look at the talk page history, at 17:33, 15 September 2014‎, User:Lowercase sigmabot III properly archived the talk page, but on 18:03, 16 January 2015,‎ User:Mormography mistakenly reverted the bot. Unfortunatly your manual edit on 23:03, 16 January 2015‎ has created significant duplication between Archive 2 & 3. I have added the archive bot info back to the talk page, as that should be non-controversial, but I am loth to trim down the material in Archive 3 that is a duplicate for what is found in Archive 2, given I am trying to avoid another barrage of accusations against me about my actions on that article & it's talk page. Given that you are the person that created that manual archive, would you be willing to remove the duplicate info in Archive 3? —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's messed up. I'll take a look at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Idea

Hello Beeblebrox, Ever since the infamous (for most people who know of it it is infamous) #GamerGate I payed more attention to feminism due to the fact 'the other side' consists of feminists (I payed attention before, but more local (Europe based)). Since then I've delved more deeper into it, and together with the news of today/yesterday (people trying to get an organisation to remove the invite to Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate)) including the near-libellous expressions of Kotaku's EiC Totillo etc, the 'porn charity' which got heavily attacked etc I really get the impression #GamerGate is just a culture war ('moderation' apparently also tries to be forced into comics, metal (the music), etc). Would it be a problem if I used my Sandbox page as an model to attempt to figure out if such a thing what I think it is is reported on by RSes as such, and whether it's possible to make such an article according to the Wiki-standards? Also, if it proves to be possible and can be done according to all standards, can it then be moved out to the regular Wiki (with possible tie-in links to the related portals)? Regards MicBenSte (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly you are asking if it would be ok to draft a new article in your userspace sandbox. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that so long as you keep in mind that many policies , WP:BLP in particular, apply every bit as much in userspace as they do in articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

1234567890Number‎'s self-given awards

Aside from the service awards (which you've deleted), they've also given themselves like 20 barnstars. Could/should anything be done about those? I feel that they lessen the value of earning one--I could have User:Origamian give me a dozen, but they'd be meaningless. Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • If they want to waste their time doing that, then let them, as long as it doesn't spill over elsewhere. The last barnstar seems to have come from January 2013, so I don't see the massive drama myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
I wouldn't call it a massive drama and if they object I'm willing to let it drop, but I have removed all the unearned awards and replaced them with a message about what Wikipedia is and how awards are supposed to work. My real concern here is that this appears to be a user more concerned with their stats and their shiny awards than in actually doing anything to help the encyclopedia. That is an attitude that should be discouraged. I would note that I became aware of this because of a request at WP:PERM for advanced permissions so it isn't just giving themselves unearned stuff, they are now asking others as well. Luckily I used real tools to check their edits, so the request was declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be so lacking in AGF, but I would appreciate some guidance regarding the history at WP:LTA/BF101. A user who fiddles around in user space and puffs up an LTA report just might be a problem. Also see this comment on the LTA talk, which I removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Austin & Ally Season 3

I was looking through Disney Channel stuff and noticed that the table for the season three episodes of Austin & Ally is messed up. I wouldn't know where to start looking. - Amaury (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be an error introduced by a recent edit. Looks like someone else already fixed it, which is good because I have no clue about table formatting. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Augustine Volcano

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's warranted just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason you can't edit that page is because it is semi protected, which prevents edits from users who are not yet autoconfirmed. The reason, crazy as it may seem, is that there are apparently people creating accounts for no other purpose than to comment on that proposed decision. But wait, what's this, you seem to have admitted on your talk page that you are such a person an that you already have a another Wikipedia account. Editing project space with a single-purpose alternate account is not permitted so I guess the answer is going to have to be no. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B. Hinckley

The instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection seem to indicate that, if you were requesting an change to the page protection status on a page already address, it should come to the admin who did it first. So I believe contacting you is the appropriate action. However, if I'm supposed to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I apologize. Just let me know and I will do that.

You added a full protection to Gordon B. Hinckley set to expire on January 24th (1 week) due to a content dispute. The dispute has been discuses here since that time. However, the moment the full protection expired, one party immediately made the same change that led to the content dispute, completely ignoring the discussion and the consensus.

Therefore I'm requesting that you extend the full protection for whatever time you feel is appropriate. Clearly the content dispute continues.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection is really not something we want to do as it limits everyone's ability to edit, and I was very, very clear about blocks being issued if it resumed. therefore I have blocked them instead. Frankly I was tempted to go for an indef WP:NOTHERE block as all that user seems to do is edit war and make insulting, dismissive comments directed a t other users, and I don't believe they actually want to learn how to properly participate here, but maybe, just maybe this block will open their eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)g
Wow. Why the incivility above? Talk about dismissive comments directed at other users. Anyways it was interesting that ARTEST4ECHO was not blocked for reverting. You seem to prefer the state ARTEST4ECHO begged you to side with him above. It has become obvious to me now that suspending my edits was a mistake. Now the page is frozen in the Bold part of BRD. You seem to be believe that you were "very, very clear", but please clarify something for me. It has become clear to me that the disconnect on that page has to due the editors lack familiarity of the actual history. I now understand that what is occurring is an attempt to add some non NPOV to the sentences, which in assumption of good faith I will assume is unintentional. Now, please clarify will I be blocked if I add NPOV dispute to the section. Mormography (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're still not getting it. I do not care about "sides" in this dispute. I don't even really know what the sides are. It doesn't matter. Don't edit war. That's the one and only message I have tried to convey to you. It's really not that complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
?? The question was will I be blocked for add something like a NPOV dispute to the page. I am having difficulty seeing an answer in the above. Apparently this all very clear to you, but obviously it is not to me. Once already I was blocked (and interesting enough others were not) under the assumption things were very clear, despite me declaring it was not clear to me. So if you refuse to answer directly the question, I will have to assume you are stating I will be blocked for any edit including adding a NPOV dispute.Mormography (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I don't really like to keep dealing with the same issue over and over again anyway. People tend to start taking things more personally on both sides of the coin. So, just count me out of it and do as you will. If other users feel there is edit warring going on they can just report it or ask for page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Be honest

How good did that feel?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good enough that I just made this to replace it. Note the bananas. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant, but your efforts were appreciated. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bananas

You made we smile, - userbox with bananas and header. Thank you for the rare event between Kafka on AE and a friend gone, - did you know that I have a banana on my user page, but very small because it was deemed infuriating? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite and avoiding bans

I came to find this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong#e.27s_not_dead.2C_e.27s_just_restin.27

Which looks like a clear case of WP:MEAT and editing by proxy for an indefinetely banned editor. They both right out admit to emailing each other in case the editor needs something done. In particular, Hipocrite seems to be patrolling toku articles reverting everyone as if they owned the pages. This is against reaching a consensus.

If you could please point me to the specific board where I could raise this issue it would be appreaciated, thanks! Loganmac (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could take it up at WP:AN if you really want to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on Arbcom, which is a messy, acrimonious, time-draining, soul crushing job. I was one of your biggest detractors going in and one of your biggest fans going out. Although we might have differed on this specific or that, I appreciate your honesty and needed toughness on the committee and thank you for your service to The Project. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you, that actually means a lot to me. And may I say that I have noticed you as a much-needed voice for moderation and reason at a certain other website. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Thank You

Thanks for handling all those CSDs I posted. I really hate doing that to a relatively new user but I honestly could not find even a very thin rational for keeping them. They were just empty shells with a name. There were a few others that had maybe a single event but no sources that I put maintenance tags on. But I gotta see SOMETHING besides a name and see also section. What I find particularly disturbing is that almost all of them had passed an NPP review without any kind of tag or notice. Anyway thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, new page patrollers may have passed on this because WP:CSD#A3 actually does say that an article with just an infobox is not subject to that criterion. However, there wasn't actually any content in the infoboxes either, they were really just navboxes. There is some wiggle room there but I think the spirit of the criterion is that we shouldn't have articles that don't actually say anything and these certainly did not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For starting this RfC. Perhaps you could consider starting a similar RfC for the reviewer right. Biblioworm 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks also. I use a tablet for most of my wiki-editing, especially watchlist patrol, and rollbacks make it extremely convenient for mobile device editing. My rollback rights were recently revoked because I used them for what a certain admin considered questionable "abuse", ie. not strictly vandalism, but certainly unconstuctive edits that needed reverting. Your proposal would eliminate that, and make mobile editing much easier for me again. I hope this passes, but thanks for your proposal, whatever the outcome. If the Gadget proposal itself isn't accepted, perhaps the rollback restrictions will be eased anyway in consideration of mobile editors. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Appreciate your trust in granting me the pending changes right and I will do my best to use it correctly! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey Beeblebrox, I was just in the middle of saving a comment on this thread when you archived it, so my initial revision was not saved. I went ahead and added it to the archived discussion with an edit conflict notice. Is that alright? I know it's not really the norm, but this was something I felt strongly about; at the same time, commenting outside of the archive box might reignite the conflict, which is also something I don't want. Kurtis (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine in the case of an edit conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

for procedural reasons.

no thanks

Hello! I'm never quite sure why people would do things they don't agree with "for procedural reasons"; but don't ever do things "for procedural reasons".

Anyways, here's your obStandard once-per-decade reminder. ;-)

Procedural reasons abdictate responsibility. Procedural reasons are often misunderstood. History shows that Procedural reasons tend to explode in your face.

Do things for smart reasons. Do things because you agree with them. Do things because you understand why they are important to the encyclopedia.

If the procedures work, then your actions will be exactly per procedure anyway. (And that's why we have them ;-) .

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Don't blame me for posting this, it was purely for procedural reasons. this post by the first admin to succesfully block for IAR violations

Alright, I was going to leave it at that, but I guess I'll dive in then.
Can you provide a somewhat more detailed reasoning, or link to your reasoning (if already posted elsewhere) for your action
21:33, 2 February 2015 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) unblocked TyTyMang
I was just looking at that together with an arbcom member, and now I'm wondering if the discretionary sanctions wording needs improving.(especially in light of the way you responded just now)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ever since my last software update I am experiencing an issue that makes copy/pasting diffs extremely difficult, so you'll excuse me if I just ask you to check my recent edits, where you will easily be able to see me explaining my reasoning at WP:AN, at the now-unblocked users talk page, and at the original blocking admins talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm also a little puzzled here, by two things. JzG's block may well have been wrong, may not have been. Not here to talk about that. But why did you undo a block that made no mention of being an Arbitration Enforcement block, or in any way related to ArbCom as "out of processs method for applying arbcom sanctions"? Also, why did you tell JzG that the proper way to use DS was to file at AE? You know that's never been a requirement for admins who wanted to impose a DS, the rules very explicitly state "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised"? Courcelles 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose in my zeal to forget about arbcom I may have erred in directing him to AE. However, the block was admitedly preemtive, and Jzg was making agreeing to a tban a condition of unblock. I don't believe that's how it is supposed to work. He seemed to be trying to apply his own personal DS when the committee has said that community based DS for gamergate is now superseded by arbcom DS. So using a block to arm-twist a user into voluntarily agreeing to it seems way out of process. If he had told him he already was tbanned and he better not violate it or he would be blocked that would be different, no? There was also an emerging consensus at AN that the block was flat out wrong to begin with, but I was trying to soften the blow (because I do believe Jzg was honestly trying to help in an area that needs admin help) but I guess that didn't work since "procedural reasons" is apparently some sort of trigger word for Kim, causing him to come of a prolonged editing break just to chastise me for daring to phrase it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
And Kim, for the record, if you have a serious issue to discuss maybe next time don't use condescending, canned platitudes with smilies on them. Doesn't make one want to take your concerns seriously when that is how you express them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could assume that I was trying to just be nice and let you off lightly with some condescending, canned platitudes with some smilies on them.
In reality, I seriously don't want to see anyone use "Procedural Reasons" as an excuse ever again; ever. In the past, those words (or similar words to that effect) have often lead to big news articles about "Wikipedia messes up yet again". I do not want to read news articles like that. That's a reasonable wish, right? Do you really think I expressed that wish so impolitely?
In this particular case, looking at this user's posting history, I have a really bad feeling they're a sock trying to stir up trouble. JzG probably spotted more details than I did, clearly.
Will you be keeping an eye on them, and reblock them at the first sign of trouble (if/when that does occur?)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) p.s. Said canned platitudes happen to be cross-section summary of policy and essays. Don't like policy, guidelines and essays? Feel free to change them.

You've got mail!

Just wanted to check in and make sure you got my email. No reply is necessary... just wanted to make sure it went through :) Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been really lax about checking since I left arbcom. For the last year I had to review anywhwre from a dozen to fifty or more emails pretty much every day. Your mail did come through and I'vejst replied to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gearóid Morrissey

Hello, could you please restore the history of Gearóid Morrissey prior to it being deleted at AfD, as the person is now notable. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, sorry to pop up out of the blue. With regard to this, I am itching to change that "form" to "from". I'm not going to, though, as I am terrified that it would annoy you, breach 93 rules of etiquette and cause the internet to collapse. So I am just casually mentioning it in passing, putting my hands in my pockets, and walking away whistling. Have a lovely evening or whatever time you are currently experiencing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have NO idea how much better I feel now. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If it was in one of my comments I might have been incliced not to bother, but right in the RFC opening statement is no good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I just wanted to apologise if I came across too harshly during the RfC. The most important thing we should all remember is that we are all Wikipedians, and that we are here to build the greatest encyclopaedia that the world has ever known.

Again, I apologise if I came off as rude or inconsiderate before.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

I've never seen it myself, but has someone ever tried to game the system and propose the same thing again more or less immediately after it has been closed? I assume such has happened before, but I've never seen it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You name it, chances are somebody has tried it at least once. There have been a few times over the years that I have seen a proposal get firmly rejected, and the user proposing it comes right back with a slightly different version of the same thing. Usually it seems based on misunderstanding that it is not the details but the underlying idea itself that the community doesn't approve of. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Couple Questions

Hello, I hope all is well. I have a few questions about a page I am trying to publish for Topher Mohr. I appreciate the tips on the formatting of the references and will update those to reflect accordingly. The question is with the material that was deemed potentially infringed, the meat of the page. The site it was compared to actually copied almost word for word from his published bio on his labels site. The label has sent wiki a clearance to use the content in the form needed, indemnifying them, as they are the content owners. Can this be corrected in any way manually? Lastly for the references, it had been warned about user blogs, would the Huffington Post fall into that category or be ok? I ask because we have had a heck of a time getting this page up and he has a fairly strong career to date. Again, I very much thank you for your help and tips, it is MUCH appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case the volunteer response team should have it and as I recall they usually post a tag on the talk page noting that permission has been released. They get a bit backogged sometimes so it may just be a matter of them getting to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Perhaps in a few days or so it will be clarified. Again, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Does my topic ban prevent me from raising concerns over BLP violations against my person if they would be within the airspace of topics covered by my topic ban? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming by "BLP violations" you mean "personal attacks"? Engaging in needed dispute resolution is one of the standard exemptions to topic bans. Personally I would suggest you just ignore whatever it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I feel it would fall under BLP, as Wikipedians are covered by WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not allowed to have probably false information about individuals said in Wikipedia's voice. Nor are editors permitted to make slanderous or damaging comments concerning people. Now, while one could get some professional bloggers to quickly publish some hitpiece based on doctored logs, ArbitrationGate proved that, no, even if the BBC said that the sky is red, that doesn't make the sky red. But I digress. My main concerns are editors making false claims, and similarly false claims being said in Wikipedia's voice (i.e, not in quotation), concerning my person. Specifically, an attack on not only my race, but also my sexuality, and my status as non-neurotypical. If I understand correctly, I am permitted to try to settle disputes, but you didn't specify if it was just between editors or disputes in general. Could you clarify that please? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This is all a little vague, which I assume is a result of you trying not to violate the tban. Seems like it might be a good idea to just email arbcom, or someone who is still on the committee, and give them the specifics of what the problem is and what you propose to do about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

If you do propose eliminating the rollback user right again in a year or two, make it clear next time that you aren't proposing to replace it with Javascript. That seemed to cause a lot of confusion. Thanks for trying anyway. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I had high hopes there but I guess now's not the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

Hello Beeblebrox. First of all, could you be more specific on how my vandalism message is improper? I would like to have your opinion before I change my current warning system. Also, about how many edits reverting vandalism and warning vandals would you like to see before considering granting me the reviewer right? Please leave your response on my talk page, and let me know if any of my other current warnings are improper and how so. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lord Laitinen: I'm sorry I am contradicting your request to post this to your talk page but I, like many (if not most) users feel it is better to keep discussions in one place instead of fragmenting them. And as this is my talk page and I have both a note at the top of the page and an edit notice that explicitly mention this I am electing to reply here.
Regarding your "warning system," I question why you would even need that when we already have a perfectly good system that was developed over many years and has strong community support. Why reinvent the wheel? You can see the templates that pretty much everyone else uses by reviewing WP:UWT. The simplest way to use these is to go into your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE, an automated tool that helps you deal with vandals along with many other things.
As to number of reverts/warnings, for somebody with your level of experience probably just a few dozen or so, properly done would be very compelling. Quality is more important than quantity.
I wouldn't even worry too much about the reviewer right. It's only a very small part of what contributing here entails and if you just keep doing your best I'm sure you will find a future request will be successful. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your advice. I agree with you on the warning system, and I am placing a request for deletion on its page, and would appreciate if you could delete it soon, so that no other users who may see it will use the improper warning messages. Within the next few weeks or months, I should have attained two or three dozen more reverts/warnings, and, at that time, I will place a request on your talk page (since you were the one who provided criteria for me) for the reviewer permission. Lord Laitinen (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Lord Laitinen: I hope your warning templates are rough drafts and not being used, "Such stubborn and impudent behavior has consequences here on Wikipedia, and you were given chances to improve" and "The consequence for doing this is usually a 24-hour block to test integrity. Please refrain from breaking this rule again" "to test integrity" ? Please consider re-wording these templates, (IMO) these templates are presumptuous, rude and bitey, at best. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am actually pretty surprised, but today alone I already have over two dozen edits related to reverting vandalism/disruption, warning users, and reporting users to administrators. I, like I said I would earlier, am now re-applying for the pending changes reviewer permission now. If you would like to see a few more vandalism-prevention edits, no problem, just let me know. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Another dozen and a half or so anti-vandalism edits since adding this message. Please get back to me as soon as you have time. Thanks again! Lord Laitinen (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you have also posted a new formal request I'll leave it for another admin to review, but I have to say your apparent impatience to get thsi user right does not fill me with confidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would prefer the term "persistence" over "impatience", but you're right about me wanting the permission soon. To be fair, I have done exactly what was asked of me since applying the first time, so, we'll see what happens. Thanks for your help! Lord Laitinen (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

hero

I was contemplating to give my daily prize to the infobox-hero mentioned in the Signpost, and you block them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately many of the infoboxes the created were no good, they appear to be running an unauthorized bot, and they won't talk to anyone. That didn't leave much choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No subject

You recently blocked Antotherreincarnationoftommythetroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a sock of TOMMYTHETROLL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Off Wikibreak

Hello,

Can I ask you to remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my User:ZuluPapa5 account, so I may resume editing with that account. Thanks TenzinTashi5 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done although I would caution you that you should be more careful in not editng the same areas with two different accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Yes there is at least one editor watching me if I do, and likely to cry all foul as a despicable sock. Allbeit, for evading a battle. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Revisit a block?

Hey, you may want to revisit the block on User:Chelyabinsk University. Their article for Yanuc Salkovski is up for AfD and there's a strong chance that the article may be a hoax, so you may need to block them if a Russian speaker comes on and confirms this. I figure I'll leave it up to you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks liek somebody else got there first. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Please block me until the 2nd of April Yoppy The Nurse (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you fail the first one of my conditions for considering this, your edit history is brief, and in fact this request is your first edit so far this year, so I don't really see the point. You can use the wikibreak enforcer if you want =, it accomplishes basically the same thing without adding anything to your block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Self blocks

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comment and a link to your requirements page, if any. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_33&oldid=1263038640"