I see you are becoming active in closing AFDs. If a discussion just has a deletion nomination and one editor arguing for Deletion, our regular closers close these discussions as "Soft Deletions" per WP:NOQUORUM. This is due to the low participation in the discussion and this closure allows for restoration of the article at a later time should an editor wish to work on the article and improve it. This doesn't happen with a straight Deletion closure. Our biggest problem in AFDLand these days is low participation in most discussions and a Soft Deletion acknowledges that fact.
If you use XFDcloser, which I hope you do, you'll notice that you can check a box to make the deletion a Soft Delete. Please consider doing this in the future if you agree with the policy I linked to. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article isn't eligible for Soft Deletion as it either was PROD'd in 2019. Soft Deletions are like PRODs, articles are only eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) they haven't been PROD'd or to AFD before and b) there are no Keep votes. It's important to review the article page history. So, I think this AFD will have to be closed as a straight Delete. I hope my earlier message wasn't confusing.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Just wanted to say that I agree with you after seeing your comment, I was focused on the words themselves and not the message itself. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I sometimes watch the request/case pages etc, and I have a comment. When you add to your original statement like this [1] without signing, it introduces some mild confusion, making it look like all of it was the original statement, and that is not how the other commentators are doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you slash through red tape and lift that ancient block, which was a refreshing change of pace after your stonewalling of a similar request some time ago; HOWEVER, I believe in doing so you might've overlooked a relevant bit of information.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the connection was made in error (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexcas11/Archive doesn't even mention "RoyalRumble24" as far as I can tell), but I think we can both agree that this isn't something to just ignore. If you disagree, please make a statement to that effect for the record.
This is what I get for trying to AGF and look for a simple solution. I think I'm still inclined to just wait and see given the amount of time involved. The unblock doesn't really change anything as they apparently can't access that account, so if they don't immediately go back to creating hoaxes there's no issue, and if they do... banhammer. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator of that thread I kind of feel the same way. +1 for them trying to be transparent though, when they could have just not mentioned all the extra socks. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that effectively allowing a banned LTA back on the site isn't a call that a single admin can make. By simply unblocking, we're setting the editor up for failure.
Think about it: the best case scenario is that the user becomes a productive contributor, at some point gets into a dispute with someone over something (which is quite literally unavoidable), that someone decides to use the fact that the user is still technically banned to get the upper hand, and all hell breaks loose (with you at the center of it probably).
Instead of leaving the siteban situation effectively unresolved, we should follow the normal procedure: start with a CU check on TheAmazingCoffeeMan (I'm sure @NinjaRobotPirate: wouldn't mind lending a hand) to make sure the banned LTA doesn't have twenty other accounts operating already (AGF but verify), ask them about those other accounts they didn't mention, and then have a proper AN discussion.
Personally, I too would support letting them return based on the length of time that has passed since their vandalizing rampage alone, but it's in everyone's best interest to do it the proper way. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla is often herself tempted to refer to little 'shonen as "dummy". Sticks the little Just Step Sideways in her pocket. Approvingly:] Good little user! Stay! bishzillaROARR!!pocket09:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, Just Step Sideways. I am thrilled to share that I successfully completed my NPP School Training and Assessment yesterday, guided by DreamRimmer’s mentorship. I wanted to share this update with you specifically, as it was your encouragement back in June 2024, when you granted me Autopatroller rights and suggested I pursue NPP, that led me to consider taking this step. I hope to see you around, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you feel I am deviating from Wikipedia's editing guidelines or committing any sort of mistakes. Charlie (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
If you ever see any of my actions you find questionable don't hesitate to point them out. Civil queries about admin actions between admins should be completely normal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a portion of that DFO. I've seen some questionable blocks but not so questionable or so often that I felt a need to stick my nose in. A more open culture among admins, challenging the decisions without challenging the admins, would go a long way to fending off any unnecessary escalation. To those who have felt able to tactfully step in to situations such as this before they have blown up, more power to you. Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have not received any response for 11 days on this page. Is this normal? How can this be explained, and what should I do? Kind regards JMGuyon (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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.
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. [4]Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:09, 20 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]
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
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)
