Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Revision deletion of log summary

Hi Beeblebrox! I'm messaging you in regards to this log that you RD'd the summary from under RD2. First of all, I agree 100% that the summary meets the criterion under RD2 for revision deletion and should be redacted. However, since this log is currently the subject of evidence in an ArbCom case, shouldn't we restore the visibility settings for community visibility and review while the ArbCom case is open (like admins do sometimes to deleted pages or histories)? We can surely reinstate the redaction after it closes... what are your thoughts? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I had the same concern so I punted. I went ahead and did it but also emailed arbcom to ask what they would prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

three thousand, six hundred and thirty-five days later

I get 3637 days using this. You might have skipped the leap days in 2012 and 2016. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I used an online "how many days" calculator. You'd think they would account for that, but maybe not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but {{age in days}} is accurate:
  • {{age in days|23 April 2009|8 April 2019}} → 3,637
Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a handy trick to know, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that, I did not mean to cause any Trouble. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, and if there was something not immediately obvious such remarks can be helpful, but with such a low edit count it's pretty open-and-shut. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

AN thread

May interest you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Turning_DRN_into_MEDCOM_v._2.0. jps (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove mediation from this notice too? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request It's protected. jps (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any mention of formal mediation there... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Strong

Wikipedia:Strong, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Strong and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Strong during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lame. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Well that didn't take long. I'm embarrassed that a fellow admin made an MFD nom so bad it was closed as speedy keep a day later. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey!

Thanks for your help with UTRS appeal 24955. I didn't realise WP was now blocked in mainland China!-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there should probably be some sort of general announcement about it, it is affecting a lot of users. Nobody's real sure what prompted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you also please take a look at appeal number 24956? It's from AKS471883 and I'm wondering if they are being affected by the same issue? I have asked them for their IP address but they haven't provided that - possible language barrier going by the reply they gave.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Left comment on the ticket. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again and also thanks for the link to the discussion at WP:AN. I didn't realise that there was a discussion there. Although surely if Wikipedia is blocked in mainland China then Godking aka Jimbo would have some knowledge of it!-- 5 albert square (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Evans (artist)

Hello, Beetlebrox (42, Heart of Gold etc). Yesterday you deleted my page on Wikipedia. I can see there are plenty of references from the Independent, Advertiser etc. that were quoted in the discussion on deletion to prove it's authenticity. Dick Evans and Richard Evans are the same person. There is only one contemporary artist Richard Evans, it does not confuse with the historian or brass band leader. The page has been active for over ten years so it seems odd to remove it. It is now Richard Evans not Dick Evans for obvious reasons maybe that was the confusion. Here is my website with plenty of press in a link under the BIO section www.richardevans.org. I can edit the page to put more links on if that helps. Could you please re-instate it asap, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardNicholasEvans (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@RichardNicholasEvans: I didn't see this post when you made it, because for some reason you chose to insert it in between other threads. In the future, the best way to open a new discussion is to use the "New section" link at the top of the page.
Getting to your actual point, I deleted the page as an administrative action after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Evans (artist). My role was not to evaluate the article itself, but rather to determine what consensus was arrived at in that discussion, and I did and do believe the consensus was to delete the article. So, I'm afraid the answer is no, I will not be summarily overturning that action.
You should also be aware that Wikipedia generally does not want article subjects writing about themselves as there is an inherent conflict of interest in such situations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network where users are free to write anything they want about themselves and/or promote their own interests. From your edit history this seems to be your only interest here.
All that being said, what you can do is draft a new version of the article for review by others. I would be willing to restore the article and move it into draft space for you to work on it until it has overcome the problems identified at the deletion discussion if you want. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, if you could put the article as a draft and I could take a look to get a gallery to possibly resubmit it that would be great. I didn't write it originally, hence not having the first clue of how to work Wikipedia and posting in between comments but anyway I'll have a look at your criteria and see if resubmitting is appropriate. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardNicholasEvans (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Page is now at Draft:Richard Evans (artist). Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian Coburn

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

salute

The Barnstar of Integrity
Not just for the current nozzlery from the WMF, but for generally being one of Wikipedia's best for a long time. Reyk YO! 20:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's getting crowded in here. Time to move to a bigger bar

I'll buy you the next one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Much respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
And whether meant or not, Maher's latest tweet, a mere two hours ago, when she's fully aware of this ongoing shitstorm, was to retweet "There are several men in this bar wearing women's names on their backs and good christ that is an amazing feeling." Nice to know she cares so much about the community that she has time for that sort of thing, but no time to respond to us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
These are hard and sad days. Anybody know where they keep the cheap whiskey? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Thanks all for your comments. I really didn't want to do this as I still firmly believe in Wikipedia's purpose and goals, but I have lost all faith in the foundation and I don't want to serve at their pleasure or whim if this is how they are going to treat the folks who actually create and maintain their product. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we didn't, but I'm sorry to see you go. --Rschen7754 22:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for everything. We are here for the mission. We are here our communities. We can, I believe, pull out of this! With respect... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I really do hope you're right, the community is certainly looking to you to advocate for us on this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

?

Wow. I have no idea what's going on, but this was not what I expected to see when I opened my watchlist today. I hope you're not leaving forever. One of the main reasons I participate in Wikipedia is because I get to associate with so many people from all over the world, who all have such a high degree of morals and integrity, and ideas and values I may not have even considered. I learn a lot from them all, but it was definitely nice to find one who shares that uniquely Alaskan way of thinking. I hope you won't be gone for good, because my watchlist will feel somehow empty. Still, I understand how things can be sometimes, and we all gotta do what we gotta do. I wish you well, Beeblebrox, and hope to see you here again. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Basically, the back office did something stupid. That's hardly new, but as I always say it is what we do after we make a mistake that's important, and they've basically behaved as though they don't really care and they'll get to it when they feel like it. They've made statements that sound very sensitive and concerned but don't really say anything and they've taken no actual action in the weeks this situation has been unfolding. (actual reportage about this here.)
As a result a number of admins (about 15 so far) are quitting unless and until there is a tangible change.(or maybe some of them are just never coming back, time will tell) I still hold on to a tiny sliver of hope that this may be resolved somehow in a way that is satisfactory but for now I'm not donating my time and effort to maintain this website.
Plus it's summer and it just barely smells of smoke so far down here, I got things I can be doing outside. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see. It took a lot of reading to find out what the deal was, but now I sort of see what is going on. Well, I hope you had a good fourth, and are surviving the fire and heat. I wouldn't mind, however, if you guys down there would take all the smoke back; it's giving me a headache up here. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
June
cornflowers
it's summer, - some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for all of y'all

Well now, you too. Thank you for your service. And I see Ad Orientem needs a beer too. And MSGJ. Thank you to all. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblockables: excellent article

The June 2019 Signpost brought me here.

Now, the uneasy question: how to avoid such a big (cross it: small) boys club as finely described there? Tiptoeing thru the minefield is not an answer. The admins are for newbies and lurkers, not the other way round. They (=you) are servants, not angry, short-fused, entitled princelings.

I propose that an ANI-originated, democratic, just etc. block stay as such. Not a hint of wheel warring.

Let voted rules be rules. Zezen (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2020 Bangkok

Hi Beeb. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Klea Pineda

Hi there. Aside from being a reality show winner, Klea Pineda has been gaining notability nowadays as she co-starred in television series and some movies. She has also been competing in modeling contests internationally. I've created a draft for her: draft:Klea Pineda, and I hope you can check it and help me in moving it to article space if you think it is acceptable. Thank you very much. Spectacularosiris (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry that you had to leave. You were so much help over the years.

Bearian (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Swan Lake Fire

I am not ready to return at this time, but this should not be a redlink. This is the biggest wildfire currently burning in the United States, over 100,000 acres and more than 400 firefighters trying to contain it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not thrilled, but coming back I guess

I've been checking in once a week or so just to see if anything has changed. Checked in today to discover that T&S has turned over evidence to arbcom and they are reviewing it. It's not exactly what I would've liked to see, a secret case with invisible evidence, but it's something. A move back in the direction of letting the local community deal with its own issues. It doesn't matter to me if Fram is unbanned or not, that was never the real issue, the real issue was the autonomy of the local community to manage itself, and the responsibility of T&S to only act in the most extreme cases, or if our local arbcom asks them to.

I am therefore requesting the return of my advanced permissions, except checkuser which I don't really use. It's still summer in Alaska and I may not be super active right away because I'm busy in real life. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

welcome back old friend —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Glad to have you back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Wait... Alaska has summer? 🤔 Oh, and welcome back. Kurtis (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested removal of their own advanced permissions on 28 June 2019. By Beeblebrox's request to this committee, their oversight permissions are restored, effective immediately. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 10:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox
Welcome back! Have you been added back to the oversight and functionaries email lists? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I stayed on the functionaries list through this so that's good. Not sure if I'm back on oversight, if there's been any traffic there since my rights were restored I haven't seen it, and I can't log in to OTRS. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Your note

The book cited gives full bios on the people whose entries were updated, where I found virtually no useful references. If you actually reviewed the book, you would see clearly how useful the citations are. The previous citations, by contrast, looked a lot more questionable. I was attempting to add academic rigor with these references and was planning on doing the same with several other books, including encyclopediae on true crime. SH8901 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@SH 8901: It was your edit to Sante Kimes that brought this to my attention. The "questionable sources" there include the New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, and Time magazine, among others. Your edit added a cite to content that was already cited to the NY Times, and added no content whatsoever. This was rather the whole point of my initial post on your talk page. You shouldn't add citations that weren't actually used as citations for the article. It seems more like you are adding something that belongs in a "further reading" section given that you are simply adding it in a rapid-fire way and in most cases not doing anything with actual article content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So when I am adding citations to whole books on a certain subject, then, I should add them as "further reading?" I can do that. I was planning on adding citations for 5 or 6 reliable books that cover a number of true crime cases, because I found the sourcing on those pages very questionable. I think your advice is excellent and I will use that going forward. I'll also revisit the citations I did. Regarding Kimes, what I cited was a good full bio on her in the book referenced, which, itself, brings together a considerable number of sources. Thank you!! Sounds like I should plug on, in the way you advised.SH8901 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back Brox! I am very proud of your actions throughout the FRAM fiasco. Keep up the good work and I'm happy to see somebody care about our community processes to the point of taking drastic measures to stand up for our community autonomy. Now we do have history and I used to have a little bit of a grudge against you, but I have for a long time been no longer mad at you and have gained a deep respect for all the good you've done for Wikipedia. Let me explain. When I was a kid in 2013/14, I was upset with you for revoking my talk page access at Pixiemasters (now renamed to obscurity, the relevant link is at my current user page) after I had got it back after getting removed for a year. I was upset because I felt I was ready to show a step in the right direction but you revoked me before I was allowed to further demonstrate. Eventually in 2014 I evaded that block and made this account and wasnt caught for four years. After awhile I grew tired of editing dishonestly but didn't admit it because I was scared of punishment, but then last year when my senior year of high school started, I decided to admit it because I had a feeling the community would be forgiving and understanding. I started by admitting to you personally, and you deleted my post on your page, showing that you forgave me and moved on. I decided to take it to the teahouse however to solicit responses and do the right thing, where Cullen blocked me for my admission (as procedure, not as a personal attack) and restored talk page access at Pixiemasters to appeal my block once and for all. Given all the good I have done on this account since creating it and me coming forward and admitting it when never accused of anything and the time pssed form actions that occured when I was a kid and that I had met CIR and was almost an adult at that point, consensus near-unanimously supported my unblock and forgiveness, and that was granted. Pixiemasters was renamed to obscurity and I was allowed to continue editing as DrewieStewie. I have since became a pending changes reviewer and am expanding my role in the community more, such as when I posted an RFC asking if people who resigned in protest after having performed normally questionable actions relating to FRAM (like Floquenbeam and WJBScribe) should be considered under a cloud, which I can gladly say that there's an emerging consensus for "no". Sometimes, I'm scared that people still don't trust me on Wikipedia for actions I made when I was nine to 12, but I'm glad most people have expressed support and don't hold me for my past, such as Oshwah, Cullen, and Boing. A few have even awarded me the barnstar of integrity for coming clean and being transparent about my past now and being an honest trustworthy Wikipedian. I love this community so much, and I wanted to show you the deepest appreciation from me. Cheers, Beeblebrox, and apologies for ever being mad at you :)DrewieStewie (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Space administrator!

Space administrator!
Thank you for patrolling Wikipedia! I'm proud of you! GroupJWbackup (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Just Step Sideways. 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.

--Ephert (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ephert: Sorry, saw it at the time but my on-wiki time has been rather limited lately. Should be all fixed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ten years already. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Swan Lake fire

On 2 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Swan Lake fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the lightning-caused Swan Lake fire in Alaska has burned over 160,000 acres (65,000 ha) of wildland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Swan Lake fire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Swan Lake fire), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, I didn't expect it to make it there so quickly! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerking

I have advised Guy Macon to leave clerking of ArbCom pages to the Clerks, and I have adjusted your section heading. SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it be possible to get some clarity as to where, if anywhere, it says that all the section headers must conform to the same style? Kinda the whole point of this case is about being transparent about what the rules are... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been part of Clerking procedure for some time - Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement_and_evidence_management (and take a look at previous cases); however, I take your point that people unfamiliar with ArbCom cases would not be aware of this and other procedures. To forestall any umbridge or disquiet, it might be best to include such procedures in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, and perhaps have a link to that guide on each ArbCom page. Wikipedia procedures are the most arcane in the universe, nobody knows them all, and even if you think you do, in the meantime they have been changed! I suspect I unknowingly break at least one protocol a week! SilkTork (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not exactly in a place where it is obvious to those making comments. Personally I don't agree at all with the ban on threaded discussion on the PD talk page, in particular since arbs and clerks are apparently exempt from it and feel free to reply wherever. I understand the need for it in the initial request page, but not on the PD talk page, which is as far as I know the only talk page where threaded discussion is verboten. But I do appreciate you providing the link. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I've just re-read that section again, and upon closer examination it doesn't seem to apply to PD talk pages, or any talk pages. It also appears that this was a decision made by the clerks which seems a bit ridiculous. Arbcom clerks can't tell the community how talk pages are to be formatted, even on arbitration committee pages. Talk pages belong to the community, not the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the ArbCom pages as being ArbCom pages rather than community talk pages. I see them as being the place where the Committee can discuss matters publicly with input from the community. Given that matters being discussed are often the ones that create heat and conflict, that the Clerks bring shape and some decorum to discussions is vital. Bear in mind that ArbCom also have the emal list, and tend to discuss matters there which are not always private matters, but the discussions are certainly free from observation and criticism. The more order and decorum the Clerks can bring to the ArbCom pages the more likely it is that future Committees can be encouraged to conduct the whole of their discussions on ArbCom pages (other than matters which are genuinely private). Any lessening of the control over ArbCom pages in any sense of belief in community ownership of the ArbCom process will likely in reality to result in less community ownership; unless, of course, the community takes responsibility for decorum on ArbCom pages and indicates to all users that order and civility on ArbCom pages are required, such as, for example, commenting in your own section and using uniform and neutral headings which do not attack other users. The day a non-Clerk can adjust another's section heading to conform to uniformity and neutrality without pushback or complaint will be the day we know that the community do truly own the ArbCom pages. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That sounds real nice (although I don't necessarily agree) but it does nothing to assuage my concern that there actually is no policy that says PD talk pages are subject to these policies, and that the rule you did point to was apparently made up on the clerks mailing list, which isn't how policy, even for arbitration pages, gets made so far as I know. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork:: In case you missed it, now he's just deliberately being disruptive to make a point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought that your position was that making your point in the TOC is a good thing. Now you say it is bad? You certainly had no qualms about doing it yourself by inserting "Guy Macon violating WP:POINT up and down this page" into the table of contents with a subsection header. WP:GOOSE, anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Request that you remove your comments about me at Arbcom

how about you stop acting as a self-appointed enforcer of rules you don't even know, that works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the table of comments of this version: [1]

Now compare it with the table of comments of this version: [2]

Also, please note the email I just got from a Clerk saying "Yeah, you were right" with a link to the TOC change that removed the disruption that you were fighting so hard to allow.

I am not sure whether it is your position that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is OK if done by others and not by me, or that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is OK if the point is "Fram shouldn't have to go through an RfA" or "Guy Macon is doing bad things" but not OK if the point is "making your points in the TOC instead of in your comments is disruptive".

We can continue arguing with each other here on your talk page or on my talk page if you really want to, but your complaints against me on the Arbcom page are now referring to something that I removed from my comments (so you did get everything you asked for), and does not further the purpose of having a page where the arbs can see the comments of the community regarding Fram's ban, so I am politely asking you to remove them.

If you really want to pursue this, we can have a discussion on the clerk's noticeboard -- hopefully after the case closes. I am inclined to drop this now; I got what I wanted (no more arms race as editors compete to see how many points they can get enshrined into the table of contents) and you got your way (I removed every word that you had objected to, and the much-needed clerking was done by a clerk). Shall we simply agree to drop the stick, and not bother the Arbs with our disagreement? I don't know if you noticed this, but they have a lot to deal with without reading about a fight between two editors about table of contents disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RfA. Your kind words, there and elsewhere, are truly appreciated. I look forward to when our wiki paths will cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but my talk page is always open. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Rollback Permissions

Thank you for the kind words that you shared for me! I will be sure to use these with responsibility! HeartGlow30797 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello Beeblebrox, I think you have mistaken, Being part of that movie team, I was trying to create a page for our movie. So that i can add relavant facts and attaching reference links. I am not writing any article as part of promotions or as a influence marketer. I tried only to put forth the facts, not any paid advocacy. Thank you. Santhoshikrithi (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Santhoshikrithi: ok, here's the problem: Wikipedia's definition of promoting something is not just limited to blatant advertising. The fact that you said "our movie" makes it clear that you do in fact have a conflict of interest here. And the fact that you already admitted as much, as you should have, and then changed your mind and removed it the next day is pretty telling as well. And then we have your friend @Izaccess: in the section right below this one, who happened to edit the same article on the same day, displaying almost the exact same denial. You are both pretty clearly connected to the subject, and writing about your own projects is discouraged on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Beeblebrox, Please note I am not paid any compensation for publishing articles. Izaccess (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving help desk thread

It isn't clear why you archived a thread today to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 1 (which contains material from the year 2004), rather than to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/September 2019 (or just leave the automatic archiving to do it)? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

See below, I didn't even know i did it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know I don't have a one-click archive link to be able to misclick, but is the implication that there is something wrong with the set-up if it archives to the wrong place? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I don' think the page is set up fo one-click but I have it turned on so it shows up on every page for me and apparently I just bumped it while scrolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Held Desk archive

Not sure what's going on there, but you seem to be sticking threads in archive 1 rather than the latest archive. GMGtalk 19:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What's going on I that I apparently misclicked somewhere, twice, because I never intended to archive anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, derp. I didn't see the thread above this. Sorry for the double bother. GMGtalk 19:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I want to thank you for you for the kind, encouraging words and offer to help that you sent me this morning as I was struggling with my first edit. I am happy to rx that I figured most everything out including text, table, citations, and editorial submission. Thanks!

O.K. Matzerath (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
is! We were all new here once so I'm very aware of how overwhelming it can seem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Promotional Username

I request that you reconsider this diff. Editor has twice created and submitted for AFC consideration a biography of their own work that is significantly impacted by the Conflict of Interest/Advertising. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Which, as I said at UAA, means their edits are the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe

Please don't. GermanJoe is a nice guy, your issue is not specific to him and shouldn't be crowbarred into what should be a completely uncontroversial RFA. Guy (help!) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's just a question, and if he needs you bulldogging people to defend him from questions (which I doubt) he isn't ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
GermanJoe might be a nice guy, but “Dr” Lionel Spamhaus of the Iowa Pseudoquackery Institute isn’t, and sometimes admins need to answer difficult questions or reprimand people. Seems like a fair question. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: I must say that I can't see the benefit to these questions, especially your latest follow-up which seems unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think he answered both questions quite well. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_41&oldid=1211805545"