I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
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.
And you think he's not able to see what's going on and decide for himself, and needs you to give advice (masquerading as a question), because ...? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I'm just disappointed in almost everyone around here these days; I'm not sure why I thought that wouldn't be true of you too. Consider it a rhetorical question. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cop to it being a suggestion inside of a question. I'm not sure Graham has been honest with himself, based on comments I have seen him making, and this was an attempt to nudge him in that direction, not to kick him when he's down, but I can see how it could come off that way. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that was an utterly pointless and mean "question". If you want to say he should withdraw, just tell him he should elsewhere in the discussion or on his Talk—you're not earnestly asking if he's considered it. ꧁Zanahary꧂02:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello, Just Step Sideways, and hello@Star Mississippi (who had kindly relisted the page)
Can I ask you to kindly undo your close of that AfD about film, please? There's not even one Delete !vote on that page.....and the nominator has asked for sources... that were provided (at AfD and on the page; it was vastly improved....(by me, fwiw)). Nor the nominator nor @Dclemens1971, who had !voted Redirect (which had been the outcome of a first close, see TP where I asked Star Mississippi to relist it), have responded to new sources (added twice), true but that should not be considered a reason for deletion. At the very very least please consider a relist. Whatever your reading of the page is, it is absolutely impossible to consider there is a consensus to delete at all. Your closing statement does not indicate any reason for your decision, so I am assuming it is a mistake. Thank you in advance. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I didn't mean to close that AFD at all. I was very confused for a minute there because an AFD I thought I had closed was still open and I couldn't figure out why. I clicked on the wrong one, I guess from scrolling too fast. I'll fix it now. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox is a name I vaguely recall, and respect, though I don't think our areas of WP interest overlap much. Why have you changed it? Maproom (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had been contemplating it for some time. When I first registered this account, people, including myself, were generally unaware of best practices for online security. So we did things like name our account after one pet and use the other one's name as the password. Sadly, my cat Zaphod Beeblebrox passsed on some time ago. And I've been a longtime fan, due to my wife, of The Fall and since the death of Mark E. Smith I'de been contemplating a new username based on a fall song, so I went twith one of my favorites. [1]Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation! I once observed an editor who changed his username as part of the process of standing for some official WP role. I'm reassured to know that you're not up to any such thing. Maproom (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:
I don't think that thread is ready for closure. Maybe the immediate issue has been dealt with, but (per my comment a short while ago) it's a sign of a broader problem that really needs to be dealt with—the conflict's been dragging on for years, and if it isn't addressed, someday it's going to result in a block or desysop, which is the worst possible outcome for everyone. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I think, given the various mitigating factors, that nothing concrete was going to come of this. The egregious personal attack and the confusion/lack of information regarding the supressed content make it extremely unlikely. Technically, no discussion should be had, ever, on-wiki regarding supressed content. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's true for the wheel-warring/suppression, but the point I was trying to make in my comment was that the problem goes well beyond the most recent incident—and I think that point deserves engagement rather than a closure 20 minutes later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the diffs you posted, but even without them, it is obvious to anyone who just read that single thread that these two don't get along and have not for some time. Absent any sort of explicit proposal I'm afraid I really don't see the point. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about leaving Tercer a first-and-only NPA warning for the message they left shortly before you closed that although if I were an admin, it would have been enough for me to block them. You're obviously right that a discussion needs to happen but I can't imagine it going anywhere as long one editor feels comfortable telling another "you don't know anything" and whatever else. Thoughts? City of Silver21:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Regarding the deletion of Timeline of UFOs, shortly after the AfD was initiated it was moved from Timeline of Ufology (see here). The latter article has not been deleted, and even retains the original AfD notice. Probably a 'feature' of the Wikipedia deletion software, but it and its Talk page also need to be deleted. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are right. Apart from being quite funny, it means Wikipedia gets a free RFP testing service and everyone gets to watch if they can figure out how to find a method that works. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? There's a clear consensus that it exists, just not that it's notable. That's the perfect sort of situation for a redirect or merge. The only argument against a redirect or merge--it's not mentioned at the target--is a very surmountable problem. ATDs, by policy, should be prioritized over deletion, even when there's a strong consensus against retaining an article in its current form. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I tried to explain this when making the close. Despite the differing perspectives on what it meant, I did see a consensus that it was not notable and there were no sources. I do not believe that ATD mandates that we must do a redirect in such circumstances. There's not really anything we can say without a single reliable source. The lack of reliable sourcing strongly suggests this is MADEUP, or at best almost totally unknown even to players otherwise familiar with canasta. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to infer that it's made up, then I recommend you do your own BEFORE-like search before making such a supposition the basis for any action. There used to be a strain of thought that would excoriate closers for doing this, but I strongly encourage it: I believe it's the best way to see for yourself whether the !votes are reasonable. As I noted in the AfD, I saw stuff with the "ponytal canasta" name in it all over the Internet: A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. For example, This shows that there are out-of-print scoresheets for this variant that were sold by and reviewed on Amazon as late as mid-2022. Definitely doesn't contribute to notability, but just as definitely shows--especially with all the other NN ghits--that this isn't MADEUP, even if I can't support any argument of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one thing: an entry in an already notable article doesn't need an RS suitable for notability, just one able to satisfy V, which non-controversial SPS'es can do just fine. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey since you are around, can you check if the edits this this ip was trying to make at UAA was a valid report? An user warned them on their talk page, but, like me, the user cannot actually see what the edits were and I have tried reporting some accounts before and being disallowed by a filter because the username was bad.
This is also the IP that made the extensive (unsigned) report that you just removed (so it's probably related to that...). – 2804:F1...1F:8749 (::/32) (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. This person just does not listen to anything anyone tells them, but, to be fair, the initial notice I dropped on their talk page, which they may have finally actually read, said they could just create a new account, and I did say I was ok with an unblock. I'm exasperated, I don't think they are acting in bad faith, it's more like lack of clue and unwillingness to actually read and understand advice. I guess we just leave the old account blocked, you've already advised them that, for what that's worth, that creating a new one was a mistake. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Just Step Sideways. First, thank you for responding to my recent question of you as an Arb Committee candidate. I had wanted to ask it of all 12 candidates but found using the Source Editor question template so confusing that I ended up asking only CaptainEek and you, the first two candidates on the list. Then I had to give up in the interest of time, but I sent the voting commissioners a strong suggestion to make it easier for us to ask questions of candidates (preferably just asking Wiki's tekkies to make this possible in the Visual Editor instead of the bewildering Source Editor).
Now I have an unusual request. Somewhere in the election messages I came across an exchange between you and someone else in which you were indirectly bemoaning the US election and saying something about waking up in the morning and fixing our country — to which the other editor said something about how amazing it would be for you to be able to do that. I know I'm not quoting accurately. But I found her (his?) comment so hilarious that I wanted to send a little token of my enjoyment. Do you remember that editor's name, or the general location of where that exchange took place so I can go find it?
You got my vote for the committee, by the way. I really liked how you explained the issue of your having been penalized for whatever you did that got you in deep yogurt with the committee. You admitted you could have done things differently but had learned from that experience. That completely changed my original plan not to vote for you when I began reading about it. If there's any place in the world where learning from life is needed, it's here in Wikipedia! Augnablik (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durn. It was such an amusing comment from the other editor. She (I think it was a she) said she'd give you a cappuccino or else that you deserved one if you could fix the country in the morning … Augnablik (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. Today is the last day for the election of arbitrators. Regarding my question to candidates like you, I found one so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, however, is an area I am blind for. I'm quite happy that my real name is short enough to be useful, and while I accumulated dirt associated with it it never became enough for me to make me think about a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Can you describe which comment convinced you that the article should be kept?[3] I only see the canvassed small accounts spamming the routine coverage by the WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources which is unhelpful when it comes to making claims about notability. CharlesWain (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there was consensus to delete it since all of the established editors either voiced for delete or merge/redirect. Those who voiced for keeping the article were all SPAs or canvassed editors with no prior participation in AfDs. CharlesWain (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that at the time, but I am very aware of his yearly tradition of asking each January for restrictions to be lifted. I still think vanishing would be a viable option though.
I've seen the "block me or I'll do something to make you block me" approach a few times and I just think it's a really bad move. The user often comes back later like "ok I'm over it now, let me back in" and the answer is always a firm no. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It comes a bit too close to suggesting a clean start for my taste. But in any case, the point was that it doesn't sound like someone who's primarily concerned about being unable to stop editing. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry they didn't let you back on the committee - it proves how short sighted the electorate is. Nevertheless you're still an admin and that's important for one with your experience, so don't let the result put you off from trying again next year. The overall results will come as a relief for many, but WP has its first non-admin arb and at least one or two with very little admin experience. There will be a lot of talk about this result. It proves again that with so few contenders it's relatively too easy to get a seat - all but 2 got a pass mark. IMO it's time to either redesign the electoral system or chuck the whole Arbcom thing out and replace it with something else. There is a better gender balance this time, but it remains to be seen which of them will be around when they are needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While I'm obviously disappointed, I'm also pretty ok with it as the three top vote-getters are all people I am thrilled to see on the committee. Liz got NYB numbers, that's a hell of a mandate. I ran because the committee seemed to be in crisis and needed help, I'm now confident it will get that help.
It does concern me to once again see neutral non-votes be a clear deciding factor for some candidates. I'm not sure why the solution is to that. I also don't think Daniel not being an admin at this exact moment is really big news as he can have his tools back any time he wants them. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would have been a lot of tactical voting that affected the results. When I vote on such secret poll elections I vote only for the candidate(s) I want and usually neutral all the others - if I feel very strongly I might oppose one. At the end of the day, with the exception of your score, the rest of the result was for a fairly reasonable (one hopes) committee - if they fully understand the tasks and workload that awaits them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what to do with all of those Code AFDs because the one participant in the discussion argued "Merge or transwiki" but didn't provide a merge target article or explain what transwiki involved. I've closed thousands of AFDs but this is a new one for me, what is involved with a "transwiki"? Thank you for any knowledge you can share. LizRead!Talk!
Transwiki is copying or importing an article to another wiki. It was more common in the early days. It's certainly not a normal AFD result, and to me it seems like we probably shouldn't do it unless whatever wiki it is targeted to actually wants it. My hope is that relisting them goes somewhere more conclusive, but it may be a longshot. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those, relisted one and then went oh hell, no. Thanks JSS for the context on transwiki as I was similarly not clear. Hope to be more helpful in the AfD queue in the new year @Liz. StarMississippi01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all admins and arbs were as sage as this WP wouldn't need ignoble venues such as Arbcom and RECALL. Every busy admin lives under a Sword of Damocles and when it falls the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater. Thank you again for being a constant voice of reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite pleased that it resolved the way it did. Mike's generally ok, and I've even met him in real life. I did not want the matter to escalate, and we wouldn't see nearly as much escalation if more admins were willing to call out things like overzealous blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to think that one of the most important qualities in an admin is the ability to say "Hands up, I screwed up, I was wrong, sorry". A lot of high drama, and a desysop or two, has been caused by that not happening. Similarly, a lot of people seem to like the "thrill of the chase" at ANI when an admin is brought forward for screwing up in some manner, and people lose their heads and shout for a desysop and ban for a spelling mistake. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've often said that everyone makes mistakes, it is what they do after that is the real test of their character. Some people let their ego get in their way and just dig in, even when everyone agrees they were in the wrong. I saw that more than once in my time on the committee. It's painful to watch. El Beeblerinoif you're not into the whole brevity thing20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting used to JSS but, personally, you'll always be Beeblebrox to me and I'm happy that you returned to your original username. As for El Beeblerino? Well, give me a little more time, please. ;-) LizRead!Talk!22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange question, maybe (and for any talk page stalkers, completely unrelated to the current AN thread) - but I've seen a non-zero number of accounts warned/blocked for having usernames that referenced fictional organizations. (Think Strexcorp from Welcome to Nightvale, or Pym Industries from the Ant-Man comics, or Pokemon characters). No spamming, at least not that I could see with my mortal eyes. Username policy has never really interested me, but this is pretty obviously an area you're experienced in- are these kinds of blocks/warnings in line with current policy/practice? If not, have they ever been? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the well known test case for this was Bronx Discount Liquor, which sure looks like a real organization, but is not. ORGNAME is the relevant policy section, and it rightly makes no mention of blocking names that are fictional or made up organizations.
Part of the issue is that a lot of people who warn users for their names are not well-versed in the ins and outs of what is and is not blockable. It's pretty much a daily issue at UAA. The standard is that the name clearly represents a real organization. This is usually easily established by the user making edits that make the connection clear. While we can't expect everyone to get every single pop culture reference, just kind of looking like it might be the name of an organization is not sufficient reason to either warn or block. At most a person could ask "is this the name of a real organization?" in a case where there are no edits to make that clear. El Beeblerinoif you're not into the whole brevity thing01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting, thank you! I love test cases - funnily enough, I'm actually a username test case-ish on the Swedish Wikipedia. [4][5]. (What I find more interesting, though, is that the admin who blocked me literally has a userpage of the erroneous blocks they made, complete with reflections and links to apologies [6]. With all the conversations we've been having about admin accountability, a page like this is fascinating to read. Or, at least, it is to me.)
But no, this conversation was educational, thank you. I know people who do warnings and reports may not always know policies, but I've seen enough cases where an admin actually followed through on the block that I was wondering if it was an accepted course of action. Thanks again, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a declared COI with The Student Room and had been trying to propose an overhaul to that page as it was very poor. I do disagree that The Student Room itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB - which I believe is demonstrated on the draft page on my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisN_at_The_Student_Room/sandbox
The Student Room has been an important UK website for over 20yrs, with 6 million monthly users, 75M posts and is basically the only UK student community website. It has done much work with UK government, politicians and UK universities and is quoted widely. I'm sorry I wasn't around to point this out whilst it was up for deletion.
Would you object to me submitting my sandbox page for consideration as a new page for The Student Room? or how would you suggest I approach this please? I believe contacting the deleting editor is what I am supposed to do in this circumstance, so I hope that is OK.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Fixed Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
