Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Eumaeus block

Hi. I created a new account (Eumaeus-org) in order to make my potential conflict clear. No advertising was intended. If I stick to this account (IFRS17) is this OK? Should I declare the conflict on user page? Thanks IFRS17 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue witht that username is that names must represent individuals and never groups, so as long as the name you already had doesn’t represent a group it should be fine. And yes, you should declare the conflict, which you can do by placing {{paid}} on your user page. I appreciate that you are trying to do this the right way, but there have been big problems over the years with folks who want to use Wikipedia to promote various thigs so these rules were developed in response. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw I am not being paid for my work! IFRS17 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC). 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.

DBaK (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Sorry for causing confusion! My wording "official" in the UAA request was suboptimal. Thank you for taking the time to deal with this. Seems to be a happy ending. Have a nice morning and a good start into the day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Matt14451

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I feel like this has moved beyond the original subject, and since there apparently is an ANI discussion as well this needn’t go on any longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Recently, you granted this user the pending changes reviewer right for a month's trial (on 14 October 2018, see here). One criterion for being given the right is You have read our policy on vandalism and understand what is vandalism and what is not. However, earlier today Matt posted this warning for vandalism on User talk:AlexTheWhovian for this edit, that is clearly not vandalism. Other than the warning being completely uncivil to say the least, it also shows in my opinion that they have an very unsatisfactory understanding of vandalism to have the pending changes reviewer right, so I'm bringing this to your attention. Thank you TedEdwards 16:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451:, I have to agree with the above post, and it was your previous previous poorly handled issues with this same user that made me hesitant to grant the right in the first place. Your actions botht then and now show a lack of policy understanding and possibly a personal animus toward this particular user. i’d like to hear what you plan to do to going forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC){{Beeblebrox
@TedEdwards: I have had numerous previous conversations with Alex in which he was hostile, including making personal attacks and casting aspersions but I can't find where to report those anyway. I forgot to change the warning reason from vandalism (the default) to edit-warring or similar. He reverted me reverting his bold edit so it warranted a warning.
@Beeblebrox: Thank you for alerting me to this post. Matt14451 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Matt14451:So why didn't you change it at the time or apologize at any point to him for that? You should have seen his revert summary here where he says Troll editor who has no idea what vandalism is. Go read it. Accusing an editor of vandalism is an actual personal attack, explicitly stating you gave him a warning vandalism. There was a discussion here, where it was mentioned and you didn't mention it was an accident. I also refered to the warning here, and you definitely saw that because you replied. And now you claim it was an accident? Yeah right. And where has he launched personal attacks at you? TedEdwards 19:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It was an accident, I forgot to change to reason. You can't dispute that vandalism is the default when using Twinkle and I just clicked post. I saw his edit summary but why should I explain or even apologise when he just removes it and calls me a troll? Would have done the same if it was for edit-warring/similar. Other discussions such as List of Humans episodes and The Cry. Matt14451 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
He continually ignored WP:BRD because it's not a policy. Matt14451 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but considering both me and Alex had refered to the warning, you had opportunity to explain it was an accident. Did you? No. And you can't even warn people legitimately for violating BRD, because in the first sentence it says The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus, noting the word optional. And I've not seen a single personal attack in either discussion, so what are you on about? TedEdwards 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC) And why don't you say to Beeblebrox what you plan on doing going forward? That's why you were pinged. TedEdwards 20:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Time had passed and the warning wasn't significant so I didn't remember it. In The Cry discussion he mentioned me using an IP, not relevant to the situation at hand at all. His general language and attitude is aggressive. Also see my talk page. Matt14451 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I do have to say that @AlexTheWhovian:’s behavior on your talk page is also not acceptable. Users are generally given wide latitude as to what to allow and what to remove on their own talk page, and repeatedly re-instating material that the user has removed and/or persistently starting new discussions replacing removed ones is clearly disruptive.

Frankly, it seems clear that the two of you do not get along and working around each other seems to bring out the worst in both of you. It would be best if you voluntarily agreed to a two-way interaction ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Matt14451 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Might be for the best IMO, but I'm not the one to judge. Anyway Beeblebrox, the initial topic was about what I suspected to be a lack of understanding of what vandalism is by Matt and I still do. I remain completely unconvinced that the warning was an accident, considering Matt's reply to Alex's message on his talk page that refered to the warning was posted 11 minutes after Matt posted the warning. And therefore I posted on your talk page my concerns that the pending change right is not appropiate for Matt. And Matt has not answered your question on what he plans to do going forward. TedEdwards 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It was an accident, I don't know how else to say it.
I didn't realise Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) was asking me that. There are pages on my watchlist that use pending changes, e.g. Aquaman. I have checked the backlog a few times as well. Matt14451 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
While failure to appropriately identify vandalism is something that could lead to revocation of permissions, I believe there is a different issue here with two users who seem unable to edit harmoniously with each other or have productive discussions when they do disagree. So, I’m not going to yank PC today, because when the permisssion has been used it appears to have been used appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to TedEdwards for alerting me of this discussion. Disruptive editing, the correct warning, is one right below vandalism in Twinkle; it's my belief that that particular warning was not accidental at all, especially given WP:DTTR. As for the two-way interaction ban, I do not agree to such terms that would limit my editing experience, but I'm glad that Matt14451 agrees to it, so if he wants to go ahead with it, I'm happy for him. -- AlexTW 01:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I did ping you above. And it’s not really possible to have a voluntary two-way interaction ban if only one party agrees to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Without Alex agreeing then further disagreements and breaking-of-policies by both parties is likely. I recommend we don't directly communicate in discussions and don't revert each others edits, let other editors revert if necessary. Alex is still replying to me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 08:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I never agreed to it, that's why I'm replying to you. It was a voluntary suggestion. -- AlexTW 08:50, 24 October 2018 (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.

Why did you revert my UAA edit?

I think you may have been intending to say 'not a blatant violation,' but you reverted it. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Because I’m getting really, really tired of people reporting accounts with no edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this look weird?

Posting here rather than confronting the user directly since I'm a bit worried doing the latter might violate a still-in-place IBAN with a different user (which you initially put in place and of which you have been the primary enforcer), but an editor about whom I recently had some unkind words has shown up twice to ANI in the last day or so, in one instance taking the opposite side to me in a larger dispute, and in the other making a comment that essentially amounted to a call for an editor who was essentially blocked for harassing me be brought back into the community in some fashion.

I've half a mind to immediately open an AN/ANI thread to request the IBAN be altered to a one-way (so that I can freely reply when things like this happen, without worrying about the block being undone because "it was just enforcement of a ban that is no longer in place"), but I'm torn between asking for a one-way IBAN and asking for it to be replaced with a TBAN or a simple community SBAN; the problem, though, is that with the only recent incident being instigated by someone else entirely, it might just look like petty grave-dancing, while simply asking for the ban to be removed would leave the way open for an unblock on the grounds that the ban is not in place anymore.

Pinging User:David Tornheim (sorry, David, if this is all a misunderstanding / unfortunate coincidence, and you were completely unaware of the IBAN in question, but I hope you appreciate why I was unable to message you directly) and User:MjolnirPants, who is intimately familiar with all of this (he's the subject of the ANI thread David followed me to, and by coincidence knows both my history with David and the background of the IBAN in question) and is able to speak a bit more freely on several of the matters than I am.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if the above was unclear. I'm not just messaging you (Beeblebrox) as a proxy because I don't feel comfortable about talking directly to David about this matter; I'd like your advice on how to move ahead with dealing with the IBAN, which hasn't served its original preventative function for the better part of a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If the IBan in still in place at Hijiri's end, I strongly recommend dropping it. The best it could hope to accomplish now is preventing Hijiri from gravedancing, and I highly doubt Hijiri would do that. He can be short tempered and a little prone to overreactions at times (Sorry man, I still consider you a wikifriend, I'm just being as honest as I can be), but that's only when he's being pushed and annoyed by other editors. Without Carter here to push him, I have do doubt he will be perfectly civil about it.
I don't know much about the interactions of David and Hijiri, but if needed, I can dig up some diffs to show that David has been low-level harassing me as well (popping up in threads he sees me in to disagree with me or accuse me of shit, using logic even worse than he usually uses), since I gave him a healthy dose of attitude a few weeks back. This looks like the same thing. It doesn't really bother me, as he's not very effective at it.
That being said, Hijiri, don't sweat this. Every time I've had an extended interaction with David, I've been emailed by a half dozen editors warning me not to bother engaging him. And not the same ones every time, either. I'm fairly certain that David has convinced a large proportion of the most visible editors and admins on this site that he's never worth listening to, and at least one of the editors who's emailed me that same thing is involved in that discussion, already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox: I have no idea what Hijiri is talking about. I don't weigh in on threads at AN/I because he is there--I actually try to avoid him and what he says about me. He seems to be obsessed with me and constantly believes if I weigh in on anything where we disagree, it is because of him--I could probably dig up 10 diffs of that nature, at least one is above. It's really quite irritating, and I wish he would find better things to do with his time on Wikipedia than fantasize that my edits have anything to do with him.
The reality is that he is the #7 editor at WP:AN/I--I have 1/10th as many edits there, so if I speak to any issue, the odds are high he will have too. He is eager to get new editors who disagree with him banned; I am not. So if I weigh in, I will likely disagree. He seems to have drama with almost everyone he works with--I work collaboratively whenever possible.
I found it a bit ironic he wanted me topic banned from AN/I when he is so dominant there--I believe the real reason he wants me banned from AN/I is to eliminate the voice of an experienced editor who disagrees with him. If you look at our interaction, I'm hardly at any of the articles he is at.
As for Mpants, I have not followed him around either. I would appreciate if he stopped accusing me of that. We did work cooperatively at Argument from authority and with user Endercase. I miss those days. Recent interactions can all be traced to just two articles: List of common misconceptions and Murder of Seth Rich. We disagreed over content, and I disagreed with him on how he treated other editors at those articles: Fountains of Bryn Mawr, FrogCast, StreetSign and Obsidi. IMHO opinion he was uncivil to every one of those four editors, and I could provide diffs to prove it. That's why I weighed in at the recent AN/I post about Mpant's civility, and I agree that he needed to be warned. Hopefully, that will solve the problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I see serious problems with WP:AN/I (and other noticeboards), because we have too few neutral editors and admins there. Snow Rise described the problem perfectly here. That is a topic that I will continue to discuss. I believe that problem has much to do with the accusations against me above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging in editors with their own bad histories with me, including suggesting that rather than an IBAN being put in place to protect me that I be dragged before ArbCom, based on the claim that there aren't enough "neutral" editors, seems counterproductive, no? I have long since forgiven SR for all that shit in the past, but I think they'd be the first to agree that they're hardly a model example of a neutral editor that ANI needs more of.
As for my level of activity at ANI: that's my business, and honestly most of it was back in 2015 (when I was repeatedly dragged to ANI by a small clique of editors who wanted me site-banned but wound up getting site-banned or equivalent themselves) and 2016 (when I was highly active in contributing to threads in which I was not directly involved), and few editors have actually questioned my involvement in those threads recently, while yours is ... well, let's just say ArbCom doesn't appear to have disagreed with my assessment of the situation, but rather agreed with me that it didn't rise to the level of their needing to get involved at that time. Anyway, if you don't want to be TBANned from commenting on ANI threads in which you are not directly involved, I suggest you stop making comments that are likely to be seen as disruptive, and I suggest you stay on-topic here: this is about an IBAN which is currently hindering my activity despite having been originally put in place for the opposite reason (to allow me to contribute where I like without worrying about hounding).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm fairly well convinced that the only serious problem with the boards like ANI is that editors like David participate in them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like I’m missing something here. The only part of this that seems relevant to the IBAN in question is the thread about John Carter. Since you have wisely not commented there all you need to do in that situation is to ignore it. It literally is not your problem. The rest of it seems an unrelated issue with a user that I don’t feel particualrly compelled to involve myself with. If I’m completely misunderstood let me know, otherwise go ahead and take it to a noticeboard as appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd rather ignore it (it seems to be shaping up the same way I would have liked it to whether I participated or not) in the short term, but in the long term I'd like to no longer be subject to a restriction that doesn't serve its original purpose of protecting me from harassment. Had I not been subject to a TBAN from Japanese culture at the time the IBAN was originally put in place, I probably would have requested he be TBANned in the first place, rather than a mutual IBAN, and that's no longer an issue. The problem is, though, that if I just request now that the ban be removed outright, he could technically be unblocked as the ban that the block is enforcing would no longer be in effect, and if I request any other restrictions I would run the risk of being accused of grave-dancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

‎YULdigitalpreservation

Hi Beeblebrox,

‎YULdigitalpreservation still has live accounts on other WMF wikis. Some of those communities might also decide to take action in relation to the username, and if so then they may wish to review the enwiki discussion that led to ‎YULdigitalpreservation's block here. Therefore, would you mind undoing your deletion of that discussion, and archiving it instead? Sorry for the trouble, and thanks in advance for understanding,

Zazpot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Procedure at RFCN was recently changed after a discussion Wikipedia talk:Username policy. The new procedure is to treat reports that should’ve been reported to WP:UAA as blatant violations the same as actual UAA reports, which are not archived. Each WMF site makes its own decisions anyway, our username policy is not a global policy and only applies here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I wasn't aware of those conventions. Thank you for the explanation, Zazpot (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The old-fashioned way

Had a little chuckle at your struggles with the one-click archiver. Sometimes the old-fashioned ways are easier. Technology! AGK ■ 20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, one click is great when it works, but it’s fussy. I really thought I had it the second time around but apparently not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Kantabon

Hi Beeblebrox, Since you were the one who rejected my Rollback request, I know for sure that you are an administrator, so I am requesting you to block User:Kantabon. He is clearly a troll, when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, he even thanked me. Most of his articles have been deleted and he has been warned many times.

Thank you --@B00TH$IFT (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple points:

MedCom closure

As you're probably aware, the RFC was closed with "Closure in process". I see no sign of that so far, but I'm going to inform the Committee through the mailing list that I'm going to honor the closure and reply to any new requests for mediation with a rejection because "This process is no longer in operation, please consider some other form of dispute resolution." I am not, however, going to do anything more than that. Whether closure involves shutting down the mailing list, killing our bots, etc., is up to others. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m a little perplexed myself in that I don’t know what could be taking so long. I expect closure will primarily involve marking the main pages of the committee as historical, as that was the proposal, and removing it from related DR pages since it is deprecated. I would imagine the bots don’t need shutting down, if there’s no activity there they shouldn’t have any work to do. I’ll look into the mailing list situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
After thinking about it, rather than reply to individual requests for mediation, I've modified the request page so that no new requests can be made through it and given pointers to the remaining content DR processes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay (incidentally, whilst I did not note this thread, I closed it ~30 minutes after your reply:-)).
A lot of the work has been done by Legacypac, Gloucester, AGK and all.
Among the stuff, that's yet to be done, I think disabling email-access for User:Mediation Committee would be good.
I will vacate the category of Wikipedia Mediation Committee members, (as misleading in the current context) and I think de-flagging the bot(s) would be a good idea.
Additionally, you can (probably) request a termination of mailing-list by creating a new ticket under this category at Phab. I am certain that the developers need to be asked though, for (the stuff is complicated. I don't have any idea about the willingness of developers or about whether they do it, at all.∯WBGconverse 09:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


On a different note, have you ever used this list?∯WBGconverse 10:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I did contact User:Keegan as I belive he either can do what's needed with the mailing list or knows who can, but I've not heard back from him yet. I haven't used the other list you mentioned, seems like usually UTRS admins just add notes to the tickets but maybe I'm missing out... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked the user account and revoked email from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As it happens I needed to log onto Phabricator for something else today so while I was there I filed a ticket on this. We'll see how that goes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Saw this while working on some clerk stuff below, I think @DeltaQuad: may have access to that mialing list as a tool admin for UTRS. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 08:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Tool admins for UTRS have a separate list than the Unblock-l list. The Unblock-l list is depreciated, and if I do have any sort of access, it's buried under piles of ArbCom paperwork that have pilled over the years. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So, I filed a phab request and duh, they need the name of the list. I've been poring over medcom pages for an hour looking for it and I can't seem to find it. Anyone got any clue on this? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I found it here: mediation-en-l (abbreviated to medcom-l). — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Sweet, thank you, added to phab ticket. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Toolbar

Regarding your post at VPT,I think you may have missed in the section above that WritKeeper has written us a script to recreate at least the basic toolbar. I second someone's request that he take over for the WMF ... Yngvadottir (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In the subthread he said he was working on it, I did miss that it was done. Just installed it and it works! Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

At the direction of the committe; you have been added as a party to this case. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Beeblebrox. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop

Hello I'm Cameron11598 and I am a clerk for the arbitration committee. I recently removed some comments you made from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. Please keep comments on topic to the case at hand, and refrain from making comments at other editors. Comment on the argument not the person. Please keep in mind that editors are expected to conduct themselves according in a decorum and with behavior expected by community standards. I am also required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

your involvment in freds case

thanks, don't need to do any reflecting.

hi , you intoned to me that you were totally uninvolved? So what is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Workshop#Proposed_findings_of_fact_2 - there are currently 57 mentions of your name on that page. You told me, "I'd also direct you to look at the evidence presented by Risker, which clearly outlines the critical sequence of events here (which I had no involvement in whatsoever)" but on telling me that you absolutely failed to tell me how you were involved. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not involved in the actual incident that led to this case, at all. I did not edit war with Fred, I did not block or unblock Fred, I didn't even know about any of it until after the second time he unblocked himself.
I did ask Fred one question and make one follow up comment on his ACE questions page (and despite him now saying it was a highly inappropriate "demand" it was not one of the items he attempted to move in the edit war that precipitated the case), and I did present evidence and findings a a third-party once the case was underway in what could be called a friend of the court capacity. This seems to have been he proximate trigger that led Fred to start his ridiculous attempt to retroactively blame the entire affair on me because of that one question, leading to me asking to be named a party to the case despite my lack of involvement in the critical aspects of it.
So, I did not and still do not consider myself involved in any relevant way so far as the actual incident that led to the case, and find that pretty much everything Fred has presented is irelevant and outside the scope of the case as it was accepted by the committee. Hope that clears that up for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, Fred is suggesting it was your primary involvement the started the f-storm and I wont reject or ridicule the concerns of an accused person. Your contributions may be outside ther scope of the case, I wouldn't agree but only you know all the answers to your personal involvment. Our responsibility here is to resolve issues nor escalate them, your question is being accused of escalation, I will leave it with you to reflect. Regards Govindaharihari (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes!

Was I supposed to notify Major Dump about the RfCN? Thanks for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the instructions but it gets missed a lot. The idea is that RFCN is just a continuation of the discussion you were already having with broader input. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Nancy Lake State Recreation Area

On 23 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the many lakes in the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area were created during the retreat of glaciers 9,000 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Got 2,500 views, not too shabby. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Chillicothe, OHio

Hi

I was editing the Chillicothe, Ohio page. I see from your page that you tried to be nice about the Glatfelter small. I live here, and would rather be honest, so I changed it to something like ". . . the noxious pollution is sometimes referred to by residents as 'the smell of money.'" Or at least that's the sentence I *wanted*, but I had already changed it, and when I went in to change it to this version, I got an edit conflict. Having never received one of those before, I don't know how to deal with it. Would you be kind enough to 1) tell me how to do that with this, and/or 2) make the change I wanted? Chillicothe *is* polluted by that paper mill, and there is no question about it, so I'm stating fact. (Try this fact: when I was growing up here, my best friend a half block down the street, my adoptive brother, and I *all* had asthma. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out what caused that!)

Thank you very much! I don't edit Wikipedia very often, and it's usually just small stuff like dropped words or forgotten apostrophes, but this is my hometown, and where I had to move back to nine years ago, so I'm being particularly picky about telling the truth.

Thanks!


PS Some days the smell isn't too bad, and others it will nearly knock you over! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger-lyn Summer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, one of the principles of editing Wikipedia articles is verifiability, meaning content, in particular if disputed, must be properly attributed to a reliable source. So, our personal experiences and observations basically don't count here. If you have a source that explicitly says it is pollution we could use that, otherwise probably not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The Next Web

Hi Beeblebrox - you salted The Next Web awhile ago since it was being repeatedly recreated by (I assume) COI editors. I recently had occasion to create an article that referenced it (here), in the process of which I noticed it didn't have an article. Since its last deletion, I think enough additional RS have emerged to justify a stub on it which I've drafted here. Would you consider unprotecting the namespace? Chetsford (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Social entrepreneurship in South Asia.
Message added 03:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Outing policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just saw your preliminary comments at the Fred Bauder case. I think that what you said is altogether inconsistent with the actual policy, which reads "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." I know that this is one of the many parts of written Wikipedia policy that are widely ignored, but I find this one especially frustrating. The "outing" policy should not be a delicate pentagram that loses all meaning if even a straw is laid across it. It should be a broad commitment to keep off-topic personal information out of our arguments and discuss the edit not the editor, even if his full name is known -- even if it is unique. It should also be applied even where editors are only partially outed; for example, we should not say that an editor who has admitted to being Jewish should be prohibited from editing about Sharia law, nor accept lines of ad hominem debate that focus on the editor's religion rather than his sources. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You're very late to the party, and apparently not familiar with what actually happened in this specific case, which was not outing by any reasonable definition. This has been discussed at length at the case itself so I'd rather not carry on about it here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder closed

An arbitration case regarding Fred Bauder has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Fred Bauder is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.
  2. For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
  3. Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
  4. Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 08:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder closed

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello Beeblebrox,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Hello Beeblebrox: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Hello Beeblebrox: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Beeblebrox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Hhkohh (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

You've got mail!

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

You've got mail!

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cranksgiving

I'm trying to figure out why you undid my G13 speedy delete template with the edit summary "Obviously incorrect tagging." It's in draft space and the last edit before mine was back in June so it appears to me to be ripe for a G13. What am I missing? -- Dolotta (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you're right, it does qualify. I think the terrible wording in that tag threw me off, it isn't terribly clear but by the wording of the actual criterion it qualifies and I have deleted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Super Tekla

Hello there, I'm asking for your help to remove your indefinite ban on creating the page for Filipino comedian, Super Tekla. He will have an upcoming major show here at the Philippines and I think its time to have his article. Hope you can consider. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectacularosiris (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not just remove the protection, I think a better idea would be to create a draft version with adequate sourcing to establish notability first, let me know where it is, and if it looks ok I can remove the protection and move the drat to article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, here's the draft I made: Draft:Super Tekla. Hope you can consider this, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectacularosiris (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Moved into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you help find an image of a jockstrap?

Hi there. I read on WP:ALASKA that you live(d) on the Kenai Peninsula which is near Anchorage. For the article Russell Crowe's jockstrap, Anna Frodesiak and I are trying to track down an image of said jockstrap which was exhibited in a Blockbuster store in Anchorage for a few months in 2018. Do you happen to you maybe know anyone who might have such an image for Wikipedia or any places I could ask for something like that? Regards SoWhy 09:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Great plan. Please call around, like a local hotel or something and get a snapshot. That article gets a lot of hits, and as such, needs a jockstrap. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
While near by Alaska standards, most towns on the Kenai Peninsula are one or two-hundred miles from Anchorage. I know that Blockbuster well, and heard something about this on the radio, but never thought to go take a picture. Another person who frequented that store was Bob Lester, from the afore-mentioned radio show. He may have a picture he'd be willing to donate, but he moved out of state, so you may need to contact the radio station to get his current email address. Another option that may yield results would be to contact the current radio morning-show and ask them to do a shout out to the community. (They're a couple nice guys who will probably help if you ask nicely --especially if they can make some jokes out of it.) For both, email either or both Chad and Brad @ KWHL.com. Zaereth (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I make it to Anchorage maybe two or three times a year, I don't think I was ever there while this "item" was on display, although I certainly heard about it. I do know somebody in anchorage who as I recall made a pilgrimage to go see it, I can ask if they took pictures but Zaereth's plan sound pretty good to me. (and yeah, it's a 4-5 hour drive from where I live to Las Anchorage) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
If you could ask your friend about it, that would be great, then we wouldn't have to bother radio listeners in the area with our silly requests. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This kinda slipped my mind, but then I saw WP sharing the article on Facebook today and it reminded me. I think we may have something incoming in a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Social entrepreneurship in South Asia

Beeblebrox, we would really appreciate it if you could stop by this nomination and follow up on your review here, specifically with regard to the most recent comments. The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia in two months, so unless you're happy with the article after their edits back in mid-November, it's almost certainly time to close the nomination. Thank you very much for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't feel like my initial review all those months ago obligates me to permanently babysit the nomination. Do whatever you like with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Social entrepreneurship in South Asia.
Message added 09:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for a copy of a deleted page...

Beeblebrox, I am here because I understand you are someone who is willing to provide provisions around deleted pages. I would appreciate it if you could give me a copy of the now deleted page of "Jerry Wise", which was deleted in 2011. I do not know 'which' Jerry Wise the article refers to, but I would greatly appreciate if I could gain a copy of this article. If you need more information, please let me know. Many thanks, Drtimberman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtimberman (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. I am always willing to do this if there is any chance that the deleted page can be used as a basis for a new article. However, in this case this was about somene for whom there was no reasonable claim of notability whatsoever,no conctext, no references of any kind, and was wholly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In short, it almost certainly is not whatever Jerry Wise you are thinking of and you'd have an easier time just starting from scratch as there is nothing there to salvage.
That being said, feel free to ask eme if you run into anything else like this, it's no problem to have a look and if there's anything worth salvaging I'm happy to oblige. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtimberman (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments about the RFC here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Random_Small_City_Portals and [1] [2] Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not change shortcuts to essays without discussing

Hello! Please refrain from removing established shortcuts to essays, like you did with WP:WEAK and the essay Wikipedia:A weak personal attack is still wrong. Shortcuts such as this one are used in discussions and referenced throughout Wikipedia. Changing or removing them would make links from existing discussions meaningless and confusing. Please discuss any such move and gain consensus before making a change of this kind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, except that I checked what linked to that essay and, as I noted at the time in my edit summary [3] that one was unused so there was no harm in just being bold and doing it, but I suppose we'll go the other route and use RFD instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

edits at Denali

Yes Anatoli Boukreev did do what it takes other 4 or 5 camps to complete he did it in ten and one half hours, that’s why Anatoli is the greatest alpinist that ever lived. Just look at his records on the worlds highest peaks e.g Lhotse. Curtainsider (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit made it look like he started not from the base camp but fromt he base of the entire mountain and summited in 10 hours. That's basically impossible. There is also the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so something more than his own autobiography to back that up would be nice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Curtainsider:. It looks better now, but please realize this is entirely inappropriate commentary inside an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate considering the amazing feat/record. It is far more significant than failed attempts published in the same way. Curtainsider (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, replied on your talk page, and by the way please learn how to use talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Camp

Hello. You've deleted an article Matthew Camp, I've started. I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Camp didn't have any discussion and no opinion was raised beside nominator. Unfortunately, I couldn't raise my opinion, since I was traveling without access to the internet and unfortunately didn't see the nomination. Would you please resurrect the article as the draft, so I can address the nominator's reservations? Thank you in advance. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitsubishi F-3

Dear Administrator,

I would like to request the deleted article, Mitsubishi F-3, to be moved to my user page as a draft. The F-3 is a future Japanese stealth fighter currently in development. A while back I created the article but it was nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsubishi F-3, because there was a lack of information regarding its current development (namely the manufacturer, Mitsubishi is only speculated). The other editors declared the article WP:TOOSOON (which I also agree). However, I believe there is still potential for this topic in future when more information is available or if I could find more info from the Japanese Ministry of Defense website. I wish to make improvements and changes based on the other editors' feedback. In addition, some of the editors have stated that the information within the deleted article can be used for the existing Mitsubishi X-2 (a tech demonstrator designed to study and develop technologies for the F-3). Thus, I would also like to use the information from the Mitsubishi F-3 to expand upon the Mitsubishi X-2. Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally suc requests go through the deleting admin, in this case @Premeditated Chaos:. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I'll go request it from the deleting admin (I didn't know it work like that). Thanks for your help. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Meant to reply to this earlier and forgot but I've now dealt with it on my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Own edit raising concerns that probable sockpuppet would be unblocked was undone by suspected sock. (banned user User:יניב הורון)

Per title I added the concern in the midst of a block review (about a month ago) to said talk page, and now, I'm unsure where to address this, So I will merely show you the edit where the user removed my concerns promptly after I posted them. I've also gone to the other involved admin that I tagged in the first post. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F&diff=886037292&oldid=886033883&diffmode=source) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what it is you want addressed. Both the IP and the named account are blocked, so whether your comment is still visible on the page doesn't strike me as particualrly important, and even blocked users are given fairly wide latitude to remove posts from their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_40&oldid=1263038768"