Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Recall

that really feels like more than enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. I agree with you that admin recall is not and has never been (AFAIK) a "real thing". So let's make it a real thing. The only thing standing in between us and a real admin recall process is admin adding themselves to the category and agreeing to abide by the outcome. A core group of admin doing this might start a trend... – Levivich 19:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't believe it is that simple. As long as it is 100% voluntary it's rather pointless. The incident I mentioned at RFA, where an admin who stated they would be open to recall by certain listed users and simply took me off that list when I tried to recall them, convinced me that in its current state it is entirely useless. According to the records the last time it actually succeeded in removing an admin was 2011. I think a real recall process that is binding and where the rules aren't made up by the admin subject to recall is a better alternative, but the last time we tried that it was a mess and nothing happened. (As I recall we ended up with 17 competing proposals, shockingly, no consensus could be found...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
2011 is a long ago by internet standards. Do you know when the last time was that an admin declined to follow recall consensus? (Was it before or after 2011?) – Levivich 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, there is mixed opinion on recall. It's a totally voluntary process, it has no bearing whatsover on a candidate's suitability for adminsip, and it's a Loaded question. If you wish to make it a real thing, start a RfC at WT:RfA, but please don't use an RfA as a platform for your agenda - it's the kind of thing that discourages candidates of the right calibre from stepping forward, and reinforces Jimbo Wales' comment that 'RfA is a horrible and broken process'. But before you propose any changes, please take an hour or two to read WP:RFA2011, yes it might in your opinion be a long time ago but everything in that extensive research is as valid today as it was 8 years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
What is my "agenda"? – Levivich 04:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. Whatever one it was that motivated you to ask such a loaded question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, there was a particularly high profile "recall interrupted" prior to 2011, I believe a lot of faith was lost in the institution at that time. –xenotalk 16:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
And this all speaks to the point of my follow-up question. Levivich's question was loaded with the implication that recall is a functional process that holds admins to account, and therefore "yes" is the appropriate answer. I would have thought that a person asking such a question would actually be aware of the realities of what recall really is and how seldom it has been invoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You are incorrect, Beebs. (Do you want me to move this conversation to my talk page? I feel bad having a conversation about the propriety of my question on another editor's talk page.) There is no implication in my question that "recall is a functional process". First of all, I disagree that it's not a functional process. The fact that (AFAIK) one time, eight years ago, an admin was recalled and refused to step down, does not mean the process is forever irretrievably broken or should be abandoned. There are lots of plane crashes and car crashes, but I still fly and drive. Second, something like 80% or 90% of all active editors today were not active editors 8 years ago, so we're talking about a community that's now comprised of different people than it was back then. Third, I have faith that almost all admin who add themselves to recall would abide by their own recall criteria. Call it WP:AGF (something that, frankly, I'd appreciate being extended to me in this conversation). I am well aware that it's voluntary and it can be ignored. Moreover, I'm OK with that; I think it's a good thing, that reveals character. Fourth, it's my RFA criteria: no red flags and willing to be recalled. The way I see it, there is really not much an admin can do that can't be undone–a page can be undeleted or unprotected, an editor can be unblocked. So if a candidate is willing to submit to a community recall process, I see the risk of supporting them as far, far lower. I'd be willing to give anybody who doesn't have "red flags" and who is willing to be recalled a shot; conversely, I'm probably not willing to support anyone who isn't willing to be recalled. I think I'm not the only one who would lower the bar for a recallable candidate; I think recall will reduce oppose !votes and thus lead to us having more, not less, RFA candidates. You may agree or disagree with my criteria or my theory, but that's par for the course–I certainly disagree with some other editor's criteria (like Joe needing page creation for example). It doesn't make my question "inappropriate" or "loaded" or anything like that; it's a perfectly rational criteria. Ffith, if I'm the only editor who feels this way, candidates can say no, and other editors won't be persuaded by that, so I don't see any risk of harm in asking the question. Finally, I encourage each of you to add yourselves to the recall category. We should have a community-based desysop procedure–there's vast agreement on that, if not on how it should be done–and this is the shortest, fastest, easiest way there. Allowing admin to choose their own criteria also has the added benefit of crowd-sourcing recall mechanisms; we can figure out by trial and error what works and what doesn't. One bad experience eight years ago is no reason to give up. – Levivich 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I personally think people asking questions based on their personal criteria is annoying. I'm not saying you don't have a right to ask it but you've just told us that in your estimation anyone who doesn't cave in and say yes isn't suited to be an admin. This is despite the fact that recall hasn't done anything in years and less than 1% of all admins are in that category. And no, I will not be adding my own name to that tiny minority. (by the way it's even smaller than it looks as a lot of those folks are inactive and some aren't admins at all anymore) I am not opposed to a real community-based desysopping process, as I mentioned I have worked on this issue in the past, but recall as it now stands is rightfully unused because it is toothless. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I respect your choice to add or not add yourself–I'm not going to badger you about it or anything–but whether or not the process is "toothless" is entirely up to you. If you want it to have teeth, add yourself and abide by the outcome, and–boom!–it's a binding process. Now it has teeth. I bet that most of the time, most of the admin would abide–after all, that's what the history shows. – Levivich 16:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, thanks for the long explanation. It doesn't change the fact that the question has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a good or a bad admin, and reveals nothing about their character in that respect. It also so demonstrates that you apparently do not fully understand the implications of a loaded question. The English Wikipedia currently has 1,151 administrators out of a total of 2,215 created. 73 have been desysoped 'for cause' (Arbcom out come generally following a community request for a case). That is 3.29%. Of those only 141 have made a recall pledge - I haven't yet examined whether or not they did that simply to appease voters at RfA. Personally, I therefore do not believe that recall is a necessary process at all, and veiled demands for it through a question at RfA are not appropriate. Moreover, due to the constant toxic nature of RfA which led Jimbo Wales to declare it 'a horrible and broken process' several years ago, RfA is still waiting for someone to come up with firm proposals for changes, and for an effective community driven desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Tell you what, KP, you keep waiting for a top-down solution, for someone to come up with firm proposals for change, as you have been for over a decade, and I'll keep working on an organic, bottom-up solution (admin making themselves recallable by whatever criteria they want, so we can see which systems work and which don't). Bet you a beer my crowdsourced method will get there in less than ten years. By the way, I really don't appreciate "agenda", "loaded question", "veiled demands", etc. There's no need to be so confrontational and condescending. – Levivich 01:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 27017

Hello,

Just checking that you meant to send this UTRS request to the CheckUser queue?-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Was just about to reply there. I'm not 100% sure either way, and asking for a CU to check is maybe not AGF, but it seems like it would verify their claim. I'm open to the idea that I'm mistaken in looking at it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Homee

Hello!

I created a page and it seems like it was deleted. HOMEE, Inc. was the page. Just wanting to get an understanding of why it was deleted. Just so I can edit and get it posted.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliesands (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. See [1] Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ARCA notice

Hi Beeblebrox, the Threaded discussion and section headers on Arbitration talk pages arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Unique situation

Hi, there. We have a situation that admittedly has caught even myself off guard. I nominated Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe for deletion, on the grounds of it being inaccurate fancruft. Others spotted that it was violating copyrights, so it was promptly nominated for Speedy Deletion and summarily followed through with. Within minutes, however, the page creator recreated the page, but removed the copyright content. I'm now confused, as it's about the exact same content, with the general basis of the original AfD, but now technically a different article-- while the AfD is still alive and active. How can this kind of situation unfold further? DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly unique. It looks like the particpants at the AFD are aware of what's happened so I guess it should just run its course, but you ay want to amend the nomination so any new participants know what's up. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

rollback

Hi. This pertains to User:Harshil169, who you granted rollback permission to a little while ago. This user has been misusing their rollback rights, and continues to, after being informed of it. Just wondering if you could possibly drop by and attempt to explain this to them. If you have a minute, that is. I have no skin in the game, BTW, other than not wanting to see rollback misused. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid i see it the way they do, normally when you level an accusation of tool misuses at someone, you are expected to provide diffs that back up your assertion. They asked you to do so, and you didn't. I would ask the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The same person issued warning on my talk page due to which I’ve been declined page reviewer rights. I sought differences by pinging but got no response and thus I removed that from my talk page. Best, — Harshil want to talk? 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Can this type of repetitive accusations without proof can be taken as violation if WP:Civility? Due to this irresponsible behaviour, I’ve been denied rights of page reviewer by administrator.— Harshil want to talk? 03:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Behold...This, this, etc. Primergrey (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Posting my justification here: Regarding first one, the parameters of templates were changed by user and thus, template was becoming invisible and user removed and added some paragraphs consequently without any edit summary.
Second one, unsourced and irrelevant statement, personal commentary and found it in filter of likely badly.
Third one, isn’t removing sourced details and adding someone's personal name as consort of Deity is vandalism? -- Harshil want to talk? 04:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thing is, the only justification for using rollback is removing blatant vandalism. None of these meet that criteria. Primergrey (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I do have to agree those are inappropriate uses of rollback as it is only for reverting blatant vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia policy. (I'm no expert on Hinduism and don't really know about this "consort" business, so I guess I'm neutral on the third one). The key point is not that it was wrong to revert those edits, it is that rollback does not leave a descriptive edit summary allowing you you explicitly say why you reverted them. So WP:TWINKLE or plain old manual editing would've been a better choice. I don't think this is serious enough to remove the tool, but I would suggest brushing up on the differences between vandalism and other types of problematic edits. WP:CVUA can be helpful in this if you're interested. As an aside, although I routinely review requests for rollback, I personally don't like it and almost never use it, i strongly prefer Twinkle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the only really legitimate use of rollback is in removing a long series of vandalistic or other unambiguously improper edits-- and , even so, I don't think I have used it mroe than 2 or 3 times in 12 years. I wonder, in fact, if we could deprecate it altogether. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI

In case you are interested, I filed an SPI request related to an account you blocked yesterday: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arham Tanveer. Peacock (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clearly WP:MEAT at the very least. I could've blocked myself but was waiting to see where the conversation went. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Username

Beeblebrox, I saw your message. The username's I've template were already reported to the username page, so the templates weren't there to report them as such. I created them because the twinkle templates were pretty terse and I was looking for away to explain a bit more gently. Since you're seeing errors, please tell me what you see that's incorrect and I'll be happy to correct them, and for the time being I'll stop looking at the username page and I will definitely stop posting the templates. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The thing witht he bot reports is that it is wrong a lot. This is because the bot can't read context, so it's reports should generally be taken with a grain of salt. For example: User talk:Dr Collins Official. You warned them for representing a group, but I don't see any indication that this anything other than a non-notable individual adding "official" to their name, which isn't a username violation. There needs to be evidence that they really are representing a group before WP:ORGNAME applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of that , actually. I also check contributions first. Their sole contribution was to puff up a school in the UK. That edit and the username suggest a potential conflict of interest. I've always been the kind of person to correct an error when it's pretty new and easy to fix.

That said, I agree the Role wasn't correct. Easily corrected, but I'll just nominate the page for deletion instead of risking more problems with it. Thanks for the heads up! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Usernames for administrator attention

Hi Beeblebrox, thanks for taking care of the report on WP:UAA. I note your edit summary included that it was a malformed request. Could you let me know what I stuffed up so that I do it properly if I have to lodge a report again. Cheers --Find bruce (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You somehow missed the last letter of the username, so it came back as not registered, but since you also included diffs I was easily able to figure it out anyway. If you use WP:TWINKLE for this sort of thing it can help avoid this type of error, but it's not really a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm suitably embarassed by the explanation, but thanks. --Find bruce (talk) 01:01, 20 November 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 "Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for trusting and providing me rollback rights.I shall take care to make gooduse of it in the best possible way by fighting vandalism to the maximum extent i can — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Rishab Dugar (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to CheckUser team

By motion, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permission to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

Katietalk 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to CheckUser team
Third time's a charm.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Email

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.

Trijnsteltalk 17:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to CheckUser team (Beeblebrox)

By motion, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permission to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

Katietalk 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to CheckUser team (Beeblebrox)

Hey dude, are you homeless??

The Official Backpack of Economy Class
'Cause you need a new one, or at least a bigger one!

You're awesome, and don't let anyone tell you different, even that guy in that car in that place. Safe travels home! <3 Katietalk 23:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks "Katie". Even though the bug you put in my ear clearly drove me insane ala Wrath of Kahn. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hi Beeblebrox. For info, I've posted this at ANI, as you have posted on the talkpage of the user in question. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RFPERM

Hey there - it looks like I was just acting on an autopatrolled RFPERM when you declined a request for SecretName101. I wouldn't object if you preferred to remove it for the time being, if you think it's best for their pages to be patrolled. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we could all use  Checking... to avoid this sort of thing, but I never do and it seems like nobody else does either. It seems kinda mean to give it to them then yank it right back, so I guess I'll leave it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't on your watchlist...

...I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I need help/assistance

I'm not having this debate on my talk page. Guidance on how to proceed is below. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i was just scrolling around on English wikipedia and was reading articles about WW2 and NDH ("Independent state of Croatia"). I have noticed that a lot of these pages have ultra-right and fascist things written in them like lowering the numbers of people killed (lowering the number of people killed in the NDH and in concentration camps), claiming that some people were of different ethnicity even if those same people identified as a specific ethnicity (for example claiming that Serbs in a specific area are not Serbs but Vlachs or Croats instead). I edited a few sentences on this specific page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Croatia but there are too many articles and too many things which are incorrect and i alone can not edit them all. So i would like to ask you to help and maybe even outright block access of editing to everyone except administrators since these articles on wikipedia are being used as a propaganda tool to misslead and change opinions of everyone but specifically the young people (since they are the ones who use wikipedia the most). I also notices that a large amount of these edits were being done by the same people over a lengthy period of time which just shows that they have an agenda.

I have gotten the impression that you are some kind of an admin so you seem to be THE person to ask for help. Articles in our languages are full of unobjective things and personal opinions and even outright false propaganda. That is why a lot of people go to the English version of the Wikipedia because they think it is more objective and that they can find the truth there. But recently not even those articles are safe.

I hope you acknowledge this request.

Thanks in advance. -A user from the Balkans, currently living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.214.240 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve seen your edits, and it seems you are the one making edits that seem to be of fascist and right wing Serbian orient. Historical revisionism isn’t tolerated on Wikipedia. Inflating numbers based on dubious sources or claiming that other ethnicities weren’t murdered in concentration camps or denial of Ustashe or Chetnik genocide is not welcomed on the English Wiki pages. Unlike the Croatian or Serbian Wiki pages which have been known to be extremely biased, POV and revisionist. You will be in for a surprise when you see that the admins will not be editing in your favour. I really am tired of seeing Balkan ultranationalists using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I am an experienced administrator, but this subject matter is by no means my area of expertise, and administrators have no special authority over article content anyway. The best way to go about this would probably be to open discussions on the talk pages of relevant articles. If the topic really seems to need fresh eyes, opening a formal request fo comment can help with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry

God bless Wikipedia, you, and them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:158E:AF59:9DCF:414F:5C80:E31 (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple things that would really help here:
  • Who are you?
  • What are you sorry for?
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Global Organic Textile Standard

Hey Beeblebrox,

Can you reinstate the page Global Organic Textile Standard as a Draft page (so Draft:Global Organic Textile Standard). I'll work on it. Also let me know what the issues where with it so I can tackle those first. I'll probably also integrate info from the german wiki GOTS page, see here Thanks in advance, Genetics4good (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've been poking into this for a few minutes, and it looks like what happened here was that I restored and userfied this for someone after it was deleted as advertising, and then later deleted it again when it also turned out to be a copyright violation. So I can't restore that version. The previous draft has the same issue. It looks like every time anyone wrote about this previously they just copied language from the GOTS website, so I'm afraid that means you'll have to start from scratch, maybe using that German article as a template. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Clean up on aisle one

Hey Mr. B., I've got a problem. I tried to move Bill Bloss (wrong name) to Will Bloss (correct name). Somehow I screwed the pooch with back arrows and the page was cloned with two different names. If you have a chance, please delete Bill Bloss, leaving a redirect to Will Bloss. Ta. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Somehow you restored the text after the move [2] How that could've happened by accident I couldn't say, but all it needed was a revert. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your message

I saw your message, and I will acknowledge that I received both of them. That said, I disagree that reporting usernames that are potential sleeper or sharing violations shouldn't be done on the username board. The board itself states:
This page is intended for reports of usernames that are blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block.
One of those violations is usernames implying shared used WP:ISU, which the name I shared was a potential violation of.

That said, I know you're a sysop and I'm pretty new, so , yes, I'll stop any posting of any usernames on that board as of right now. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request for a reply, it is appreciated. To be fair to both of us, it appears that WP:ISU and WP:UAA/I contradict each other slightly on the specific point of possible account sharing. This may be worthy of broader discussion to resolve. That being said UAA really has no mechanism for dealing with sleepers, in particular when there is no indication of who's sleepers they might be, and even checkusers can't retrieve data on an account that has been inactive for that long. I don't doubt your report was made in good faith, but there is simply no evidence upon which to base any further investigation here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Misclick, - I didn't mean to roll back an edit for which I thanked you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You might be a little bit too nice. Don't worry about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2020 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

  • the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
  • if you wish to assigned checkuser and/or oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned checkuser or oversight permissions you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If it isn't, and you haven't signed the agreement, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed it. If you have signed the agreement, but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 17:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!!

Make good things happen, BB. And be careful not to burn yourself out doing it. Party while you still can! *<:o) Atsme Talk 📧 00:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Heartiest congrats! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I kind of surprised myself by deciding to even run at all, and got surprised again that I scored high enough for a two-year term. Hopefully neither of those years will have the kind of chaos and drama we saw this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratudolances on being elected to ArbCom

Excelsior! Reyk YO! 08:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2020:

The one-year terms of these arbitrators also begin on 1 January 2020:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions. Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2019:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2019 at their own request:
    CheckUser: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • Both outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • Both outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 Arbitration Committee

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
⛄ 🎅 🎄

Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to you!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

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 2020.
Happy editing,
JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 08:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. And you are free to edit my section heading ;-) SilkTork (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I hope you and your family are well this holiday season, and that you have a healthy, safe, and prosperous 2020. For all my many sins, and in particular any I've committed against you, I apologize. Now enjoy the coffee before it gets cold. I suspect that happens quickly in Alaska :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Aw, thanks Tony. We were having a very mild winter until very recently, but the last couple days it's what you'd think December in Alaska is like. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBeeblebroxたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, your particular contributions to Alaskan subjects, and for coming back after the huge fiasco. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Zareth. And we got our white Christmas. I was afraid it'd be 40 and raining! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

@Coffee: Back at you, it's good to see you back on wiki. Solstice is a pretty big deal around these parts, our days are getting a few seconds longer now! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Happy New Year Beeblebrox!

Happy New Year!
Hello Beeblebrox:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

Beeblebrox,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.


New decade wishes

I wish life blesses you, Tnxman307, all others, with all the happiness, wealth, and great there is, always.

Happy New Year, Beeblebrox!

Happy New Year!

Beeblebrox,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal(T) 23:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Beeblebrox,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI

the exact reason I opened an ANI discussion was to get community input, make your case at the discussion, I'm not going to have a parallel discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I really wish I wasn't here and we didn't have to have this conversation - it's always a puzzle too me that people make statements like this, when they have clearly taken no effort to avoid the event they are talking about. It seems a variant of the classic rhetorical abuse of "more in sorrow than anger" or "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

We have a huge amount of stuff wrong with Wikipedia, from missing articles through incorrect statements, to infelicities of phrasing. Sometimes I choose to work on the easy stuff, sometimes on the harder. I can't see what is wrong with that. "Resides" is (almost always) an affectation, much like "persons" instead of "people" or "individual" instead of "person". In the latter case I can point you to commentary from giants of English literature, over the last 100 years, but your common sense should be enough. Moreover, while we should not try to be Simple:, it behooves us to make our articles as easy to read as possible, consistent with brevity, style and tone. And encyclopaedic tone does not mean using more obscure words instead of simpler ones, rather the contrary.

I hope you can, in future, try direct communication, rather than AN/I and run.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

I'm not making my case, I'm trying to understand your motivation, so that we can do something to stop you being unhappy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

Denali Highway

Wanted to touch base with a fellow Denali Highway veteran (I saw your photos). I did it eastbound in 2005 with a then-gf in a rented 27-ft Class-C RV. Between the washboard and the potholes it took us seven hours, loosening many bolts and one or two fillings, and boy were we glad to see the end of it. We spent the night behind that huge building at the east end, and then it was south to Anchorage and the Kenai. Good memories. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the road is rough, but it's one of my favorite places to go. Although last time we went, we waited until a little too late in the season and when we got to the campground at Tangle Lakes it was so windy we couldn't build a fire, or even stand it outside for more than a few minutes. But later that night the wind died down a little and a fantastic aurora was overhead, so it was still worth it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re user rights restored

Hi. I hope you don't mind me writing to you in this manner. I would like to bring your attention to something. Are you aware that editor BrownHairedGirl has now been given an array of new editor roles and capabilities? (you can view it at the link provided further below.)

Can someone please explain this to me?? Why is BHG being given massive new technical roles, immediately after being desysopped? How does this lend credence to Arbcom in any way??

Please note, I mean no disrespect to BHG in any way. I find her to be a highly sincere, genuinely devoted Wikipedian. I do disagree with her judgments on certain issues, obviously, but I mean her no disrespect at all. However my own view on this is simple; a penalty was enacted. It should be implemented. Once some time has passed, then after that, and ONLY then, we can consider other options.

Here is text of the expansion in roles given to bhg, at [Link to user rights log data].: 17:05, February 2, 2020 TonyBallioni talk contribs changed group membership for BrownHairedGirl from extended confirmed user to extended confirmed user, rollbacker, autopatrolled, file mover, template editor, page mover, new page reviewer and pending changes reviewer (Desysop had nothing to do with these. Assigning as they may be useful).

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in favor of magnanimity, giving people a second chance, giving people a chance to work things out, being generous, kind and empathetic to others. however, this does the opposite. this admin was desysopped in order to manage their role more positively, establish clear boundary lines, and help the process as a whole to move forward. there is nothing wrong with allowing her to remain, to enable her to continue to use her considerable talents and expertise to edit Wikipedia.

However, immediately awarding this editor with these rights is saying in effect that ArbCom decisions to protect the process can be disregarded as other sees fit.

Does Arbcom have general oversight of user roles, admin status, general user conduct, etc etc? yes or no? If it does, then further rights and roles to be given individuals addressed by ArbCom should be given only with ArbCom's consent. otherwise, we could have utter chaos here in this area, as some admins could then award rights and roles to other users, based on their own personal preferences, instead of discussing with Arbcom, or else simply waiting, allowing some time to go by, allowing some of these issues to proceed, and then yes, absolutely giving long-standing editors a second or a third chance, but only after some time has elapsed, which enables some of the established penalties to take some sort of hold.

I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of BHG abusing any of these user rights, and don't see anything wrong with Tony's logged reason for restoring them. Rights below adminship are usually handled by single admins without community consultation unless there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
okay, no problem. if that is your answer, then I accept that. that sounds fine. I appreciate your insights, your response, and your help on that. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_42&oldid=1263038662"