Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

John Carter continuing to do what he (should have?) received a final warning for

Earlier this month John Carter (talk · contribs) was blocked by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) for explicitly violating my interaction ban with him (which you implemented here). Following the block, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and Softlavender (talk · contribs) commented that he should receive a final warning for skirt[ing] the IBAN—including commenting in ANI threads directly below Hijiri while not actually mentioning Hijiri's name and repeatedly stealth-violating the IBan while ostensibly appearing not to technically (in the very strictest sense), and Kudpung (talk · contribs) closed the thread and didn't quite issue the exact final warning that was requested (as he didn't mention the stealth violations). Kudpung referred to "consensus", but everyone who commented specifically mentioned the stealth violations, which is why I think the post-block final warning probably should have mentioned these, but... Anyway, this is why I didn't seek any enforcement when he showed up on WT:BIBLE shortly after me, and has been opening alternating threads with me for the last few weeks, having previously not edited there in almost a year (in one of the hounding incidents that led to the IBAN; he hadn't otherwise edited the page since May 2016 - see the timeline here).

Just now, he posted this right below my saying something to the same effect (he pointed out that there are Orthodox bibles, I that there's a Jewish bible, both making the basic point that the OP's "Catholic vs. Protestant" dichotomy is flawed), in the first thread this year opened by someone other than me and him.

(And for what it's worth, I should probably disclose publicly that I did notice him commenting on the title of a page when I had just changed said title less than one day earlier, when he had not otherwise edited the page in nine years.[1])

Since he still didn't mention me by name, and the exact wording of Kudpung's earlier final warning didn't tell him that that still wasn't cool, I'll leave it up to you what the upper limit on action taken here should be, but I'd like to request that at the very least you issue another final warning that explicitly tells him that showing up to noticeboard discussions right after me is not cool.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And it's possible to read his comment as being a response to me, since I clumsily used "pre-Reformation Christian" to refer to pre-Reformation Western Christianity. He is riht on the substance, but I'm not able to correct myself now because doing so would be a borderline IBAN violation as it would carry the implication of having read his later comment. I had the same problem with the "list of verses" thing; I wound up having to email MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and request that he finish the job of fixing the title in my stead (which led to this). I am not sure if it is a coincidence that his recent stealth-violations can mostly be read as "Gotcha Hijiri; you missed a critical point in your recent comment". This is problematic because, the IBAN being mutual (as almost all IBANs are, even when the problem was one-way harassment), I am unable to correct myself having acknowledged that he was right (in the most recent case, adding the word "western" to my comment, and in the earlier case moving the page again to address the issue he raised). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
Pinging @Kudpung: since he’s up to speed on all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait, does Template:User not ping them? If so, apologies. I tried to ping everyone I named. (>.<) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
It should but echo notifications aren’t always reliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply noting that I received the ping of my name here and that the Iban was a mutual one which prohibits discussion anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, although I will leave it to others whether to ping him, Doug Weller might have some relevant information to convey. And, in an off topic comment to him, which will almost certainly make no sense to anyone else, I have been told someone mentioned in an email I received moved to somewhere I don't know and is presumably out of the picture, and I get tired of being unduly influenced by anonymous emails anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Responding to ping: I agree that the two diffs provided [2] [3] are deliberate continued needling of Hijiri and are stealth violations of the IBan, which for all practical purposes should have been only a one-way IBAN, since John Carter has throughout been the aggressor. This needling and this disruption and this continued saga perpetrated by John Carter has taken endless hours of the community's time, and he was given a final warning that an indefinite block could ensue if it continued. Since it obviously is continuing, I suggest either a very specifically worded final warning about such stealth violations and needling, and/or an immediate block of no less than two months' duration (up to indef). (By the way, I consider myself neutral in this discussion as I am fairly often not on Hijiri's side in any given wiki discussion.) Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


  • Responding to the ping as well. First, let me apologize for the length of this comment. I'm trying to go into a bit of detail, given that I'm not bound by any IBANs.
For quite some time, I've been "stuck in the middle" of the issues with these two editors. I've engaged quite positively and occasionally in disagreements with both of these editors. I 'like' both of them in the sense that I've felt that they both contribute positively to discussions when they appear in them. I'm not an uninvolved editor, but I am, I believe, a wholly neutral one.
That being said, I have to reluctantly, but wholly endorse Hijiri's depiction of events here. Looking the diffs above, in addition to pushing at the boundaries of the IBAN, the actual contents of those edits seem designed to encourage Hijiri to respond. In fact, they seemed targeted to Hijiri himself, not just comments that your typical editor would respond to. Comments such as these which imply errors on Hijiri's part are the exact sort of thing Hijiri seems to sometimes feel driven to respond to. JC would, of course, know this, given their history. The comment on the article title ([4]) in particular seems egregious: JC started a thread about the article name immediately after Hijiri moved it to that name, then apparently completely lost interest in that discussion. "Coincidentally", Hijiri never participated in said discussion. I cannot, for the life of me imagine any reason why someone would start a discussion about an article's title immediately following a move to that title, then walk away from that discussion unless there were ulterior motives at play, especially considering JC's usual habit (like mine) of running such discussions out entirely.
JC recently came to my talk page to insinuate that I was acting as a meat puppet for Hijiri because I had -at least according to JC- recently started editing in a topic I previously hadn't edited in (bible-related topics). In fact, I've been editing bible, Christianity and Jesus related topics for several years now, including editing a number of such pages within a few hours of JC on multiple occasions, as far back as at least December of 2014.
Regarding the implied meat puppetry, Hijiri asked me off-wiki if I was willing to move the article again, to which I responded that I would take a look at the issue, and then made the edit Hijiri linked to. I don't think that agreeing to take a look at something and then follow my own best judgement (which is my response 100% of the time when I am emailed and asked to do something on-wiki, a response with which Hijiri is well acquainted and for which he has actually thanked me at least once) constitutes any sort of meat puppetry. One might argue that it constitutes canvassing, except Hijiri was not in conflict with JC at the time, and indeed, was in agreement with them. I don't see how canvassing could be said to be a problem in discussions in which there's no disagreement.
Given the history here, I don't think there's much use in another warning. JC is well aware already that pushing at the limits of their IBAN could get him indeffed. Since then, he has been fairly blatantly pushing at the limits of the IBAN. Further given the fact that JC has only 15 article-space edits in the past year, I don't see any real downside to an indef except for the loss of a few thoughtful and intelligent comments. And frankly, there are plenty of editors capable of providing those. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
In response to the allegation from MjolnirPants above that I was insinuating meatpuppetry, I call bullshit, and I regret to say that I think myself it is hard to see how one could arrive at that assumption. I started a thread at the Bible project talk page regarding an article which was at the time at the edit warring noticeboard, Authorship of the Bible. When I looked to see if there were any responses, I saw two new threads, and didn't see any reason not to respond to them. I also believe that, perhaps, this thread itself is perhaps an obvious violation of the mutual i-ban, particularly the fact of my being pinged. I had had earlier email correspondence with User:Doug Weller regarding possible prior violations of the i-ban, among other things, some of which may be germane to this discussion. I am on that basis pinging him. And on the matter of my recent activity, right now I am gathering together a listing of the various guests on Coast to Coast AM pursuant to a discussion on the talk page there. With roughly 10,000 guest appearances over the years, and no counter of guest appearances I can find, it will take a while to gather a list of the recurring guests which was the subject of discussion there. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
So you call bullshit by talking about a completely different subject? That's what they call a non sequitur. You posted on my talk page an implied accusation of meatpuppetry. There's really no other explanation for why you would assume that I hadn't ever edited bible-related articles before, when you and I had been posting on some of the same bible-related talk pages for years. I know you can't miss my giant signature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I call your obvious, unsupportable explicit refusal to read the statements I read bullshit. I really am sorry that you are still so obviously carrying a grudge about my saying some time ago that I did not want you to preach to me on my talk page, along with your later posting on that page that you see yourself as Carl Sagan, now from what I can see maybe best remembered as the great prophet of global cooling. I am sorry that you are to my eyes incapable of trying to go beyond that. But, yes, I call your insistent attempt to spin my words as the pretty much exact opposite of what they apparently are bullshit. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I call your obvious, unsupportable explicit refusal to read the statements I read bullshit. You can call it that, if you want I guess. You can call your grandmother a kumquat. You can call the sky Larry. None of those make any more sense than the other.
I really am sorry that you are still so obviously carrying a grudge about my saying some time ago that I did not want you to preach to me on my talk page, LOL I literally have no idea what you're talking about. If you ever said any such thing to me, I've long forgotten it.
...[the rest of your comment]... Yeah, I'm starting to suspect that there may actually be a grudge here, just not on my part. Which would make sense, given this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok everyone, I think we’ve waited long enough here.
  • John Carter: Stop making any edit that even comes close to violating you interaction ban. Just cut it out. I understand that the two of you share similar editing interests, and on the whole you are both generally a net positive, but for whatever reason you two just can’t get along. You know this. This is why the iban was placed to begin with.
So, again, just stop doing anything that could even possibly, maybe, on a bad day, be interpreted as violating the ban. Consider this the final warning you were not explicitly given before, and be aware that having issued it further warning need not be given before blocking.see below, reconsidered and blocked. This isn’t rocket surgery, just keep your distance. I’m quite certain you are able to do that if you want to, so here’s your motivation to want to. I think we’d all be happy if this was the last time we had to have this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
... we were assured that these games "won't be ad infinitum" and that "the next time round it will be a very long block, and possibly indeff without much palaver" ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to Beeblebrox: Since your post above neither pinged John Carter nor was it posted on his talkpage, I personally believe that you ought to do one of those (post it on his talkpage, or ping him with the message), since his game-playing on this subject has been infinite and his excuses legion. I also agree with MPants above that "Further given the fact that JC has only 15 article-space edits in the past year, I don't see any real downside to an indef ...." -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You know what, the more I think about this the more a block seems like the most reasonable solution. Warnings obviously have not helped up until this point, and this game playing has wasted more than enough of other user’s time. I’m going to do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, would you mind adding an addendum below the block notice that any unblock should include as a condition at least a one-way IBAN and possibly a TBAN from "Japanese culture" (the area he violated the ban in last January and December) and/or "Bible" (the latest two)? I plan on requesting the repeal of (at least my side of) the ban eventually, given that the above reminded me how stressful being subject to a mutual ban can be (virtually any attempt to request enforcement can be wikilawyered into seeming like itself being a violation). But I don't want "The ban is no longer in force" to be the basis for an unblock even if the user clearly hasn't learned their lesson. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Already closed

Hi Beeblebrox, I just wanted to let you know that the Rationalobserver block appeal was already closed (as declined) at the time of your comment. Speaking with my clerk hat on, would you consider self-reverting your comment? Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I was going over all the old discussions on the subject and must’ve forgotten to reload the page when I came back and opened the edit window. Took a while to go through all that and make sure I remembered it correctly. I gues I’ll revert it as it doesn’t matter now anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Next Web‎

Reporting user turns out to be a sock and probable undisclosed paid editor. Shocker. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Beeeblebrox, You deleted a page I wrote for a company called The Next Web, I wrote an unbiased history of a notable media company that gets as much traffic as Tech Crunch and included legitimate citation sources to sites such as Bloomberg, Forbes, Entrepreneur, IBM, Techcrunch, Digiday etc. I see that page had been created and deleted before but the page i wrote was completely different and sourced. I even added controversial content to criticism's they received it. Burton37 (talk)

@Burton37: I'm not an admin so I can see neither your article nor the older versions (and whether you were involved in or aware of them), but that article has been deleted multiple times, at least once per consensus at an AFD. Since consensus was that the topic is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you need a new consensus that says it now is: you can't overrule it unilaterally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
... and then I checked. @Burton37: in the past three months you've created three articles, two of which were speedy-deleted as recreations of previously deleted articles, and the third of which is currently tagged as looking like a CV. On both occasions your articles were deleted (see also here), you left messages for the deleting admins asking them to explain why they deleted the pages, even though they had already done so in the deletion log. I would suggest you cool off and, next time something like this happens, if you have read the previous deletion logs and still don't understand them, then politely message the deleting admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What they said. It isn’t a matter of being “fair and balanced,” that’s an editorial issue, it is a matter of being sufficiently notable, and your new version did nothing beyond what the previous versions did in that regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on transportation service destinations

I’ve started an RFC on the inclusion of lists of transportation service destinations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for assistance in the creation of a page for Ron Baird

Hi Beeblebrox,

I am still very new to Wikipedia, when I first posted in the Tea house, you helpfully pointed me to a few articles and gave me some advice
I was hoping if I could call on your assistance for the creation of an Article for Ron Baird
I have put in a skeleton for the article in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artscanada/sandbox
The article is being based off of Henry Moore's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moore
I would like to know if there are any errors which I can correct, or otherwise things to work on

Thanks,

Artscanada (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Took a look. I would say you have found a notable subject for an article and that this can probably survive in article space, but there are some issues with it.
  • The tone in parts is not in the neutral tone expected in an encyclopedia. For example ”His art bestows a sense of place; strengthening connections between people and place and is integral in the fostering of a community’s identity.” is not the sort of statement an encyclopedia should be making. Remember you are writing in the encyclopedia’s voice, not your own.
  • The qoute section seems excessive.
  • A more minor issue is that you have bolded the section titles and placed a section break at the beginning of the article. The page title will automatically appear at the top of the page when it is in article space, so that isn’t needed, and section titles normally are not bolded.
  • It could also use some links to other articles, but again that is a less pressing issue. (and of course all the linked items in this reply lead to more information on each point)
In short, it has some issues but it’s not bad for a first try at a Wikipedia article and if these issues are addressed I think it would probably be a valid article and could be moved into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Beeblebox,

I took your advice and did the following;
  • Rephrased the third paragraph to be more neutral
  • Reduced the quote section to two quotes
  • Unbolded the section headers
  • removed page title
  • added a few links (WIP) to the beginning
  • added a gallery section which will hold approx 8 pictures of Ron Baird's Art
If you think its alright, I was planning on putting it in article space soon.

Thanks,

Artscanada (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s in better shape than a lot of new articles and is probably ready to be moved. The only issue there is that you need to make just two more edits of any kind in order to be automatically confirmed, which will grant you the right to move pages, or I can do it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Alright, I will have to make a few more edits before its completely done, so the 10 edit requirement shouldn't be an issue, thank you so much for help, I really appreciate it! Artscanada (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Beeblebox,

I have submitted my draft for review to be introduced into articlespace
it would be a great help if you could look it over one more time to make sure that it will go through with no hiccups,

Thanks, Artscanada (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2018 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake

Hello! Your submission of 2018 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RFC:_Slight_tweak_to_lengthy_inactivity_policy

Hi Beeblebrox. Just a quick note to let you know I’ve closed this RFC. Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring the Article discussed

Hi Beeblebrox... thanks for your assistance. I only check on the Wayne Caparas page from time to time, and I don't personally have the time (or expertise) to rebuild the new page, so can you, or maybe others in the Wiki community get it restored to some degree? As a writer who wrote for two of the magazines he helped create back in the 90's, I (or colleagues) have several of old hard copy references that were used in the deleted article, so I could possibly come back to make relevant additions with those if necessary, but I'm hoping the community can put something live in short order without my assistance, aside from the five articles I sent in the help desk discussion... which, I believe, is more than enough to get the page live again. Can you send me a link to where you are setting up this new draft you mentioned? Thank youKaySorin (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It is now at Draft:Wayne Caparas. This is kind of an odd request, usually when someone asks for an article to be restored it is because they intend to work on it themselves. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for others to jump in and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

my artical not show

sir i am new here, today i creat my new artical about of my youtube channel but it not show , maybe its not approve to publish by admin. Gujarati Pipudi (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gujarati Pipudi: I can see your sandbox, which is where the (not technically your) article is. You can't create a mainspace page because you're new - and with good reason. The article you have written has multiple issues. You haven't cited any reliable sources that support any claim to notability. And, with 356 subscribers, I doubt that they exist. Also, since it's your channel, it's probably worth looking at our conflict of interest guidelines. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m going to have to agree with all that. The fact is that the vast majority of Youtube channels are not notable enough for their own encyclopedia article, and I see no reason to think this would be the rare exception. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 2018 Gulf of Alaska earthquake

Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, I replied at my talk page. Best wishes, 144.35.45.46 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Hi Beeblebrox, as you commented previously, the user Prince of Thieves seems to be issuing blanket deletion requests for topics on his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prince_of_Thieves/sandbox/Bitcoins according to some notability criteria that he does not explain. For instance, pages such as NEO_(cryptocurrency) being flagged as non-notable while abandoned projects such as Coinye are considered notable. Are these sorts of edits typical Wikipedia policy? Thanks 66.135.187.169 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

”Proposed deletions” has a very specifc meaning on Wikipedia, see WP:PROD. I don’t see anyone having nominated the page you mention for deletion, or any edits at all there from Prince of Thieves. If you are curious about what is going on on their user subpage I suggest you ask them about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of moose attacks...

I was heading to work a few weeks ago when I saw, out of the dark, this silhouette of a moose crossing my street. It was a good 100 feet away, and I was only doing 10 mph, but it was 34 degrees and water on top of ice. I hit the brakes but just kept sliding and sliding, slowly inching ever closer to this moose with a deer-in-the-headlights look on its face. I came to a stop about 2 inches long, knocked his legs out from under him. He toppled over onto the hood of my car and rolled off the side headfirst onto the road. Not thinking, I jumped out and said (no kidding) "Dude! Are you alright?" He got up and gave me this look like I was crazy, took two steps, looked back at me again, and walked away. Brutal how these vicious moose can be.

I still agree with your sentiments. Others don't seem to have much of an opinion, but if no one responds I'll support a merge. Zaereth (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I drove cab down here for a long time and have had more than my share of close calls with moose. Always a good time. It’s odd that nobody that was so excited about the fork before seems to care about it now, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
And now at that talk page, we see “attack” redefined as “defending itself from predators.” This is getting ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Had a close encounter the other day that brought this back to mind. (fat momma eyeballing me in the woods, I knew it must be because her calf was nearby but couldn’t find it at first) I’m thinking, given the lack of any reasoned response to the re-proposal, that I’m just going to redirect it and any content that can be salvaged can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Next Web

I cannot create this article as it's protected from recreation. Noticing that there are pretty decent articles on this in French, Chinese and Catalan. Personally I work in digital and TNW is one of the major news sources. I am willing to find good sources which indicate this. I have no ulterior motive other than this clearly is an important publisher and should be documented in Wikipedia.Keizers (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of times it was deleted, including by consensus at AFD, I would suggest you create any new article in draft space first, being sure to overcome the issues identified at the deletion discussion, before putting anything back in article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Self-Block Request

Could you block me for about a month? I'd like to be offline for a few reasons, such as the fact that Wikipedia takes up too much of my time and provides very little reward (which I suppose is to be expected). Centibyte(talk) 20:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you meet my basic requirements for granting such a request. I usually ask one more time if you’re sure you really want to do this, and also remind you of the wikibreak enforcer which can do this for you without leaving an entry in your block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an entry in my block log stunt my chances of, say, becoming an administrator or something like that if I came back in the future? Centibyte(talk) 11:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
(I probably wouldn’t make it that far, but you get my point) Centibyte(talk) 11:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Centibyte: Not a self-requested one, no, but an over-reliance on automated tools might do so  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Serial Number 54129, fair point. I think I will take the block. Centibyte(talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I had a dream last night that I got reported to ARBCOM or ANI, so my Wikipedia use is probably unhealthy. Centibyte(talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock and DENY

A new user created Wikipedia:BAMBI and added it to the LTA page. Please clean up! That LTA page needs to be deleted. Any chance of an MfD? I picked you for this request because you edited the page in March. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the redirects and undid their revisions. Not sure this is bambifan101, but it certainly doen’t look like a legit new user either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Blanking

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

What was wrong with my AFG post on their talk page  ? This is the second time you've done that. The first one I just let be, but this is their second contribution, and AFG is considered a guideline unless they prove to not want to listen , then , it's on them. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, if you see a page anywhere on Wikipedia that contains nothing but spam/advertising, you shouldn’t just blank it, you should nominate it for speedy deletion.
Secondly, this advice is just plain wrong. The way you word this, it says that promotional material that would not be ok on a userpage would be ok in an article. I don’t know if that is what you meant to say, but it is what that says, and its wrong.
And since we’re now having this discussion, we really don’t need clerks at UAA adding all sorts of comments on bot reports. Each report must be reviwed by an admin, who is responsible for their own action and therefore will check the facts themself regardless of any comments you may have added, which I would note are often not about the actual username. It’s called “usernames for administrator attention” for a reason, and the idea that it needs any sort of extra clerking has been repeatedly rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm telling them promotional material on their userpage is wrong. I'm sure we agree on this. I also tell them that this can be posted in articlespace if there are reliable sources behind it, which is also correct. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 18:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing has changed in the six years since last we butted heads, you ddn't even wait for my reply, just decided to re-post your garbage advice [5] while citing policies that are not relevant and that you clearly don’t understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You know, I have to admit it: I can’t stand talking to you. You aggravate me to no end with your pompous ignorance. Escalate this to a noticeboard to discuss with others if you think it needs it, I will not be directly conversing with you any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, did it myself, now at ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:1566 AM (Metro Manila)

This is the latest in an interminable series of disposable socks created by our fanatic Filipino radio station buff, who persists in creating articles with the brand names currently used by stations, rather than the call letters of the stations themselves as our MOS dictates. Fortunately, it makes him easy to spot. Other symptoms? He is real big on the exact location of the station's office and broadcast facilities. I've been playing whack-a-mole with the guy for so long that I don't even remember the original sockmaster's username. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no end to the weird kinds of obsessions we see here, is there? Noted, I’lll keep it in mind in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You are invited!

Hi Beeblebrox, You are invited here for feedback. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 16:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you did really well, I only found one thing to nitpick at. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft RFC

Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you have the time and be so kind as to review the draft RFC at Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolback

Hi, Beeblebrox,

Greetings, in what appears to be ours' crossing the path for the first time:)

Are you certain about your re-granting of rollback privilege to Harshrathod50, in light of the multiple cases of edit-warring-notices at his t/p (he was cautious enough to not breach 3RRN, though...) and hostile-communication patterns, as pointed out by Spiff.Also, please check his t/p history, for he now routinely removes any conversations and warnings about his edits as useless discussions.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 08:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t suppose I would say I’m certain. I granted it previously and then they decided they didn’t want it, so I removed it and it wasn’t “under a cloud” so in all honesty I didn’t look any further than that when they asked for it back. If they misuse it myself or any other admin can easily revoke it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

May I be granted Rollback and Pending Reviewer privileges? I see that you granted RickyCourtney Pending Reviewer privileges a few days ago. I pledge to use such privileges in a responsible manner. I also pledge to use them no more than once a week for the first month as well as to carefully consider each and every use during that period, using them only for the most ironclad reasons. Evidence of my good Wikipedia citizenship includes having a good article and featured article to my credit. I do not claim ownership of articles but the FA was a result of expansion from a 9 line stub-like article to FA predominately single handedly and being credit by some of the edit counter tools as contributing more than half of the text of the FA. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Vanguard10 20:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m on my way out the door at the moment, I would suggest you go through WP:PERM to make sucha request. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for the welcome... and the cookies! (it looks pretty). I hope to make good editions here. And there. Regards Διεγο Απόλλων Άρης (Alejandro) (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep

I don't know the circumstances behind DePieps current block or even any of DePiep's past blocks; however, given that DePiep has actively edited Template:Infobox drug, which transcludes to slightly over 7000 articles, and played a pivotal role in improving and greatly expanding its functionality over that time period, I think that indefinitely hard-blocking him is a very bad idea unless his infractions have been particularly egregious. The benefit of his editing to Wikipedia should ideally be weighed against the cost of his behavioral infractions.

In any event, I didn't come here to advocate for his unblocking because I don't know what he did. I'm just asking you to take both the costs and the benefits of his continued editing into consideration for your decision on his current block duration. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(watching) See WP:5THWHEEL; we none of us are indispensable here. We Need Wiki. Wiki Not Need Us! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean to suggest that he or anyone else is indispensable; I just think it's worthwhile to do a cost–benefit analysis for a block of this nature when it involves a long-term editor. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Beeblebrox gave some clear conditions for how the indefinite block can be lifted (DePiep agrees that the ANI thread be reopened and agrees to actively participate in the discussion there). I don't think it's intended for the block to last very long, but that depends on DePiep at this point. kcowolf (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. That seems reasonable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The basic idea is to force them to discuss the issues that have been brought up with their editing. Their pattern suggests that their usual tactic is to just lay low and wait for things to blow over, as they have during previous blocks which had expiration dates, the last one being a full three months. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

do you do historic site pics?

I saw you mention a library in Homer Alaska being nearby. I mostly work on NRHP and other historic site articles, and wonder if you are alert to opportunities to grab pix of NRHP-listed places in Kenai Peninsula Borough. For example Cooper Landing Historic District is just 120 miles away. :) And Hirshey Mine is just 180, and Victor Holm Cabin is practically next door. :) --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ve done a few, namely the Thorn-Stingley House and Lawing, Alaska. Not sure I could find all the ones you mention, but I do know where the Cooper Landing post office and museum is. I’ve been down Cohoe road and imagine I could find that cabin too, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope on me being in the vicinity of that mine anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Down the Cohoe Road are two items, possibly overlapping (the Victor Holm Cabin and the Victor Holm Homestead). You may or may not be super-aware that there is a "Map all coordinates using ... Google maps" button in the list-article, which can bring them all up into a Google satellite view map, helpful for seeing any others you might visit, too. The given coordinates for those two Holm ones are on top of each other unless you zoom in quite close. You might find the coordinates are not all super-accurate, anyhow; you might contribute by improving them, too. :)
I have not yet been to Alaska, but I have gotten photos to be taken by visitors a few times, including for some fairly out of the way places like Aleutians East-listed St. Nicholas Chapel (Sand Point, Alaska) and the Aleutian West-listed wreck of the SS Northwestern (1889). Which, hmm, it seems i didn't get uploaded and posted yet, i should do that soon. :)
thanks, cheers --Doncram (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I spent all of last month in Anchorage, mostly for medical reasons. May be going back if things don't improve anytime soon. Anyway, the only NRHP-related item I went out of my way to photograph was The Wireless Station, seeing as how far it is off the normal tourist path. I think we put too much emphasis on NRHP stuff as it is, to the point where we've seen tourists who have gone around Juneau and Ketchikan to photograph NRHP sites and have gone directly past other places of historical interest and not bothered to take any photographs. What's especially ridiculous is that we really don't need more current photos of Mayflower School while we currently have zero of the historic block of Front Street right across the street, which is special because the 1937 fire left precious little of that pioneer architecture remaining in the townsite (I no longer have the photos I took in 1996 and 1997, which were my last trips to Juneau). Oh yeah, also, I finally got around to visiting the pile of rubble that used to be the Masonic Temple the other day to take a photograph. Dunno when I will have the time to upload any of those photos or the many hundreds of others I have in the queue, however.

Also, here's a fun fact. One of Bill Walker's deputy campaign treasurers is named Sarah Heath and resides in the Mat-Su Valley. Hopefully it should be a little obvious that we're not talking about that Sarah Heath. Cheers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I was in Halibut Cove the other day and took some pictures, and was surprised that we apparently don’t have an article on Clem Tillion. That seems like an omission. Didn’t get a picture of Clem himself but did snap one of his fantastic home which is right on the boardwalk over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need you

I could have sworn that you wrote an essay with this title, and I was trying to find it but can't. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It was actually Drmies, and it wasn't showing up because he, being the properly educated doctor that he is, didn't use a contraction: Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Saw the section title and thought it was going to be trolling.... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought I wrote it as "The Wiki does not need you." Ha, I did, following The Bushranger. Someone turned my "talk page of the talk page of ANI" into something serious--what a shame. I guess a lot of editors don't realize that talk pages can have talk pages, which was precisely the joke (about cabal-style secrecy). Drmies (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: crat

Thanks for your note, I respectfully won't be resigning. Participating in a discussion is completely different from closing a discussion. My actions as an editor, on a certain topic which I feel strongly about, are in no way a reflection of my ability to close a discussion I am dispassionate toward, such as an RFA. For what it's worth, I promoted a user to administrator in 2017[6] so per the inactivity guidelines, I am not close to relinquishing my bureaucrat tools due to inactivity. I don't wish to argue with you. Andrevan@ 19:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Arb case request

Asked and answered, show a little patience. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In my humble opinion and with all due respect, you should withdraw your case, with no hard feelings held from my end. It is misfiled, and you haven't met the burden to show there is need for a case to be opened for my advanced permissions. I understand you are trying to help Wikipedia, but you didn't show evidence of a pattern of misuse of admin tools in your filing, and I don't believe you will find evidence of this in my history. If there are any issues or concerns from the past that you'd like to discuss, I am happy to. I'm not perfect and I've been involved in some disputes over the years, but I urge you to consider withdrawing this. Andrevan@ 23:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Three arbs have already agreed to accept the case, so I think you’re a bit offf in saying it is “misfiled”. If they ultimately do not accept the case, then that’s that, but I wouldn’t have gone this far if I didn’t think Ihad a case. I’d drop it right now if you hand in your ‘crat tools though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Three arbs agreed on the basis of MONGO's statement involving suppressed edits. In my view, the topic ban has already addressed that. Not on the argument you've made based on misuse of admin tools. Several users have called you out for this, including one saying it is "frivolous." I am AGF because I understand that my recent topic ban was a major fracas and I regret it. However, I have not misused admin tools. I ask you to withdraw that allegation or provide your promised evidence. Andrevan@ 00:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Like I said at the case request, I don’t have the time right this second to compile it all, I’m only seeing this because I’m taking a short break due to having a bit off a fall and trying to make sure I’ve not sprained my ankle. I’ll probably get around to it later today, because Worm seems to want it. I’ve read everyone’s replies and don’t need you to rehash them for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This seems very backwards to me. You don't open a case with unsubstantiated allegations that, in my view, amount to WP:ASPERSIONs, and fill in your evidence later when challenged. If you allege a pattern you need to show a few examples. So far you've provided very little. Nobody's looking for some exhaustive subpage, just a few diffs. Andrevan@ 00:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Get well soon!

Heard you had a bit off a fall. I am sure that you don't need me to tell you to apply ice to your ankle if there is swelling or it feels hot and to keep your weight off of it, but I do want to wish you a speedy recovery. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It’s not as bad as all that luckily. Hurt bad enough at first, but I’ve been hiking a bit lately and I think my ankle is pretty sturdy as a result. A little tender but my pride was harmed worse, was a totally avoidable accident. That being said I think I’m calling it a day here and will present my case again oin the morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

This is just a friendly question, please don't take it the wrong way. You and other users originally asked me to resign my bureaucrat flag (not my admin flag), then brought the case we're now gearing up toward. I understand the offer may not still stand for me to resign that flag and you to withdraw the case, since it's already been accepted, and that's fine. However, you are still listed as the party, and I'm not sure what's going on with it, but I do know I probably don't have a lot of time in the coming months to deal with the case, especially if it is going to take a lot of time and energy and sounds stressful. Anyway, just wanted to ask if the offer to resign the bureaucrat flag in exchange for dropping the case is still even possible, mainly in the interest of not having to slog through the case if that's the likely outcome. I also would like to know if "double jeopardy" exists in the land of ArbCom - if you drop the case, can anyone else bring the same case again in the future? Obviously, a moot point if the offer doesn't stand anymore or is invalid, but I'm guessing neither of us really wants to do all the work for a case. Again, simply a friendly query, you can answer either way or not at all if you prefer. Andrevan@ 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, that ship has sailed. Your remarks and behavior during the opening of the case have convinced me and apparently several of the arbs that maybe you shouldn’t be an admin either. And given the very large volume of statements the case drew and the fact that all but one active arb has now voted to accept the case, I don’t think I could unilaterally call it off anyway. That being said, dropping the ‘crat flag couldn’t hurt your chances with the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's what I figured. And I'm sure you figured that I would say that my behavior and comments don't violate any policies or guidelines, that I haven't misused tools, etc etc. OK, good bye. Andrevan@ 22:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 21:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Not interested. You can take it up with the current arbcom. WP:ARCA would probably be the right place to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, appreciate the reply anyway. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 22:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't spend time working on the case anymore. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Well holy shit. I am honestly surprised. Good on them for finally seeing the light, this is how this was going to end anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but you may want to remove the Passed 14 to 0... in your Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop#Knowledge_of_policy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
oops, my secret’s out, I did not write all that arbspeak. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan arbitration motion proposed

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to dismiss the Andrevan arbitration case. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Involved?

So you come to AN and express a very strong opinion on one matter, then you come along to the other thread where the matter is discussed and you immediately close it, with a similar strong opinion as the closing rationale. I just don't get it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In both cases, I was acting as an administrator. It is not just my opinion that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is something that can get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That was the first discussion, the second one – the one you closed – is about the way forward with how we think about the draft namespace. I still don't get it: if conducting a small experiment is indeed a blockable offence, I'm still struggling to see how this should lead to a prohibition on any discussions in which the results of the experiment are discussed. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of the fruit of the poison tree? As I said when re-closing it, feel free to open a new thread discussing the broader issue if you must, but leave this ill-advised and unethical experiment and it supposed results out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to respectfully disagree: I don't think it's within admin discretion to be telling editors what wikipedia topics they can or can't be discussing. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The point is that nothing good can come from discussing the results, such as they are, of an admittedly unethical and unauthorized experiement. It only distracts from the actual issue rather than informing on it. You are correct that I can’t unilaterally order you not to discuss a particular topic, but the thread, by its very nature, was disruptive and unproductive and better left alone. That’s about all I’ve got to say on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon and his outrageous WP:BITE/WP:OWN complex again

As it's that time of year, I dunno how much time I'll have for anything around here for a matter of weeks or months. Anyway, quite a number of BITEy edits to Fairbanks, Alaska have shown up on my watchlist today. I walked away from that previous discussion at Butte, Alaska when he attempted to construe my observations about his editing behavior as a "personal attack" or some such thing. Looks to me like AnaSoc is an enthusiastic new contributor. Is the same thing going to happen which happened with the new editor over at the Butte article, namely that they just gave up on contributing after a while? I'm getting to the point of questioning my own continued participation even more than I already have. Basically, this dude and his predictable pattern of "I like it/I don't like it"-based editing are begging to be exposed, and he should be lucky that I don't have that kind of time right now. This behavior appears to be excused away mainly because he's adept at script editing and gaming various Wikipedian processes. Otherwise, someone would be calling it long-term abuse. What I've seen of his efforts of behalf of WP Schools is far worse. The whole Satch Carlson thing at the Bartlett High School article is a prime example, but there are far too many examples of him showing up at these articles solely to judge the contributions of others while contributing little or nothing himself. Well, two can play that game. I have a bunch of photos of and related to schools that I WILL NOT be uploading so long as this sort of nonsense continues to be tolerated by the community. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can’t say I disagree, those edits weren’t perfect but just reverting them all doesn’t seem appropriate and is the sort odf thing that can discourage people. That being said, I don’t have much time today myself. I’d suggest taking this to a noticeboard for outside input. Either WP:RSN or maybe WP:ANI or at least the Fairbanks talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Perspective

I’d rather be there than here.

Wikipedia is great, but it shouldn’t be one’s whole life, and getting into some controversy or whatever here shouldn’t rile you up all that much. It’s all just words on a page.

With that in mind, it’s June in Alaska, it’s warm and green and pleasant and the bugs aren’t too bad so I’m gonna go out in the woods and have campfires and go fishing for a couple days, maybe longer if I can manage it. If anyone needs anything before then, look elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan case dismissed

Because Andrevan (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Passed 12 to 0 on 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

RAN close

Hi! Can you take a look at your RAN close? You actually didn't archive the whole discussion (most of the !voting took place at the top), and there was a section in-between in which deleting RAN's userspace articles was being discussed, which got derailed when TonyB re-opened his initial close. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to take the article-deletion discussion out from where it is, move it to the bottom, and extend the archiving to the top of the thread, leaving the article-deletion discussion unarchived. I don't want to mess around with what could be a controversial close, but I think it would be useful to see if the article-deletion discussion (which was a post-close add-on) gets any traction. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Although the consensus on the block is clear, we still haven't determined what to do with his userspace articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've boldly shuffled your close to the discussion section about indefinite block, which re-opens the discussion about RAN's user space articles (which is still ongoing), and closed the section on RAN's response. Feel free to revert if necessary. Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
oops. Thanks for the cleanup. I meant to close it all, figuring the article discussion was trending toward case-by-case,no it wasn’t, I think I was kind of tired when I made that remark. but I have no issue with it being left open. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Stormy Lake (Alaska)

On 1 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stormy Lake (Alaska), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alaska's Stormy Lake had to be poisoned to remove invasive species not once but twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stormy Lake (Alaska). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Stormy Lake (Alaska)), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to add the above notice to the bottom of my list of DYKs and barnstars on my user page. For some reason it keeps showing up wrapped inside the previous barnstar. I’ve previewed it with various coding added to fix it and none of it has worked, I seem to the at the end of my limited expertise in this area. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I think it was that the last barnstar was not closed. I’ve done so for you. It should be working now. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 22:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried that, but didn’t know to add the pipe before the bracket. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP:RESTRICT_archive_bot

Hi, I knocked up a rough code to see if this was fesible (fesible for me that is! - I'm not a python expert, more "intermediate" - the main questions is can I find the correct Api calls and process the answers.). I've taken the 4 subpages of the main page and managed to analyse them. So far I've managed to:

  1. Chop up the four pages into discrete table rows
  2. Find the username(s) in the first column
  3. Then For each user..
    1. Find date of last edit
    2. Find date of last deleted edit (I have an adminbot - or this wouldn't work)

That all works (surprised myself), however as is always the case, manipulating the data does have a few (thankfully minor) issues. If we are going forward then we need to resolve these first.

  1. The table "slice" is from the "!" to the next "!" (less one character - we don't want the second "!", just the "|-" immediatly before it). That works well for all the table except the last row. Now the first table is OK as the last row is a comment, so I would propose the other tables are edited to be the same.
  2. There are users with no edits at all - Wikicology - is one. We need to ensure that any name change is added to the table - like the case "Eric Corbett (formerly Malleus Fatuorum)"
  3. A split row in the first column makes life difficult. There is only one - James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek - first row of table one. If this was changed to a single cell of "James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek" - like some of the other rows, then it would work OK. Split rows in other columns is just fine, I get all the whole row. e.g. Eric Corbett (formerly Malleus Fatuorum) - one cell in row 1 and 4 rows for other columns.
  4. There was one line to "User Talk" rather than "User", managed to force code to work with either.

The debug output of the initial code can be found at http://www.ronjones.org.uk/misc/16402.txt:

  1. A row of "#####" Preceeds the start of a page, followed by the page name
  2. Each table row is between a row of ++++++++
  3. Followed by the usernames found, times of their last edit and their last deleted edit and then a row of "========="

Hope that makes some sense. I've yet to look at the archive pages, I'm assuming they are similar. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the archive page - I would suggest that it takes the same style as the main page - i.e. a small pages with 4 subpages. If all those suggestions sound reasonable, then I'll start the main coding process. Let me know. Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, if you think it’ll work I say go fo irt. Thanks for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I've reformatted the tables as I suggested, all looks OK. For each row, I've managed to work out the last edit of the group. One question - what to do with a few users listed who "edit from dynamic IP address" - do we mark these to be left in the main table and never archived? Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Good question. I can’t think of a better course of action so I guesss so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like a lot of work! Notice that WP:DSLOG provides many of the same benefits as WP:RESTRICT while it simplifies entry by not requiring a table format. It allows old sanctions to fall down to the bottom of the page. (They don't need to be transferred to a separate page when they get old). Of course, DSLOG is only for Arbcom stuff but its file format might be imitated elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:It's not a vast amount. I knocked up the first test code in an evening. User:RonBot/6/Source1 currently will chop up the eight pages into "table rows", and make a decision on whether to move the row to the corresponding page (main to archive or archive to main) based on the edits of the users in cell 1 of the row. Still a few minor things to do there, and then code the actual moving or the row. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. Update - I seem to have a working system. Looking at only moving from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee to the archive Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive/Placed by the Arbitration Committee to start with - see:
  1. User:Ronhjones/Sandbox3 - List of 20 rows with no edits for 2 years
  2. User:Ronhjones/Sandbox4 - Processed main page - see also diff
  3. User:Ronhjones/Sandbox5 - Processed Archive page - see also diff
Ignore any funny characters in diff - because the results were copy and pasted from notepad, and not written direct to wiki (yet to code that bit). This is only one of eight - there's the other three pages to examine, and then the reverse action - from archive back to main. Please have a look and see if this is what you expected. If that's all OK, I will continue on. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Super. I'll continue on. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Direction main to archive working fine - see Special:Contributions/RonBot (using page copies in user space) for 23:32, 30 June 2018 to 23:37, 30 June 2018. Really pleased that the negative change in page size is mirrored into the positive change in archive page (only 3 pages changed as the forth needed no change). Now to look at the "un-archiving" process. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Finished. BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RonBot_6 Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
All approved. I've set Schedule Talks to run on the 1st of each month Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Hhkohh and Delsort

Hhkohh (talk · contribs) is asking me to sort pages into their category, which I feel is not in the spirit of the 6-month topic ban. What do you think? @Doomsdayer520, Davey2010, and Beyond My Ken: Pinging associated users involved at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Issue_with_deletion_sorting --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Just say no to any requests from Hhkohh, and you are correct about the spirit of the topic ban. You don't have to do anyone else's work. Beeblebrox and Beyond My Ken were closely involved with the effort to ban Hhkohh from this activity, so they may have more to say on any further steps that could be taken. I continue to find Hhkohh's delsort behavior to be baffling. I assumed in good faith it was just over-enthusiasm and a misunderstanding of policies, but this incident with Tyw7 shows a little more intent. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This user really isn't getting it is he ? ..... I feel a CIR block may be best here but that's my (probably unhelpful) 2c. –Davey2010Talk 14:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I was only lightly involved in the Noticeboard discussion, but I saw that Beeblebrox suspected Hhkohh of canvassing for AfD votes from far-away user communities, as if editors interested in Oregon would be concerned about an AfD for an indie album by a garage band with one member from that state. Beeblebrox considered this unlikely at the time, but I am beginning to wonder. The MOTIVE still baffles me though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Puzzling though it is, at the end of the day motivations don’t matter. This user clearly just doesn’t get how delsort is supposed to work, can’t be bothered to figure it out, and doesn’t understand the topic ban even though they said they agreed with it. We do usually give -one- warning for skirting/testing a tban, I’ll do that now. If they keep this up it’s blocking time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

An award for you

Dweller's admiration
Congratulations. Just by considering coming and helping out again at WP:ERRORS, you have earned Dweller's admiration.

Just think how much admiration will follow when you wade in up to your knees in a weirdly uninteresting DYK that has dodgy sourcing and inappropriate piped links! Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, Beeblebrox. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits of an account bearing a subject's name, but clearly by a manager/flack/etc.

I block those as "username: impersonation of a famous person" on the grounds that the manager/flack/PR intern, by creating an article, is explicitly asserting that the subject is famous (and thus should not be impersonated). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see that, but in this case there’s no evidence whatsoever that they actually are notable. That being said, blocking obvious PR people is usually the right move no matter how you justify it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

Hey, Beeblebrox. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 08:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Gallego

Thank you. So the page does not actually need improvement (it was kinda new even though it was deleted). Do I have to move it into user space or is that a special process; how does this work (sory, new to this thing)? All the best. Katz191 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think you would at least need to add a source verifying that they have played in a fully professional league, if you don’t want to see it deleted again. But you can move it yourself at any time using the move tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That is actually a very good idea. Again thanks for the help. Katz191 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Hi. I was just wondering, if this method is okay to archive. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Archiving by page move is ok in userspace, although the exact way they are doing it is highly unusual. It’s only really a problem though if it seems apparent they are trying to hide or delete the page history, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It’s an older method that is mostly unused and I think at some point it was determined that it shouldn’t be used for article talk pages, but users are given more latitude in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I love to know about old days.
See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wood-Tikchik State Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KDLG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed never should have been a dab page to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Captain Cook State Recreation Area

On 26 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Captain Cook State Recreation Area, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alaska's Captain Cook State Recreation Area was a traditional salmon fishing spot for the Dena'ina people, before being used for commercial fishing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Cook State Recreation Area. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Captain Cook State Recreation Area), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Wood-Tikchik State Park at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I’m stupid. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

If we're not more careful in the future people will start figuring out we're the same person.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha. Let’s call it “great minds think alike” instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Or.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Implementing approved policy change

Hello. You recently closed my "restrict Wikinews links in articles proposal as approved. What is the protocol now? Should I make the changes to WP:SISTER myself or is this a matter for an uninvolved editor/admin? Also, would it be appropriate to explicitly add "Wikinews linking templates should not be placed within the main body of articles" into WP:SISTER? This wasn't explicitly in the text of the proposal, but it is what all the support !votes were in favour of. Thanks, --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My read of the consensus is that Wikinews should be treated like an external link and not used in the main body of an article, and as there is a consensus you or anyone else is free to make the appropriate change in wording to SISTER. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2018 (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. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Wood-Tikchik State Park

On 12 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wood-Tikchik State Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wood-Tikchik State Park, the largest state park in the United States, is sometimes staffed by a single ranger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wood-Tikchik State Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wood-Tikchik State Park), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

on the definition of a state park

this thread is in response to this edit, which the user removed and chose to respond to here rather than where the conversation was begun. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

To Beeblebrox:

The PIPE Here - as there is no larger "protected area" at the U.S. state level to my knowledge than New York State's Adirondack Park, of 24,281 km2 in area, how would you suggest it be termed? The so-named "Wood-Tikchik State Park" seems to be directly under some sort of "state park"-designated authority in the Alaska state government; but at its 6,500 km2 area, it is NOT the largest "U.S. state-level protected area" of any recognized designation, to my knowledge, within any state's borders in the United States...until someone clearly tells me about one that's larger than 24,281 km2 in area, "the largest state-level protected area in the United States" IS the status of Adirondack Park.

Thank you, The PIPE (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@The PIPE:: Your edit seemed directly intended to contradict the well-sourced fact from the DYK hook that it is in fact the largest state park in the United States. That you phrased it in a way that did not directly say this (by using “state-level protected area”, which is not the same thing) makes it clear that you were making an apples-and-oranges argument based on your own opinion, which is exactly why it shouldn’t be in the article. if you intend to use “any level of state regulation for conservation” as your own new unique definition of a state park, it would still go to Alaska, probably game management unit 26 [7] but that also obviously is not a state park in the normally understood meaning of the term, but if we just follow what we think instead of what sources say we can make up all kinds of crazy new rules and alternative facts. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cangshan Cutlery Article

21:08, 16 August 2018 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Cangshan Cutlery Company (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)

I went over the article that I originally posted for Cangshan Cutlery and understand now why it was deleted. Some of the wording in the article was coming across as marketing or advertising. I went over the article and tried to take a neutral approach. I also, did a new user so if I do any future edits it will not be associated with the name of the company, I know that was somewhat of an issue.

I am new to Wiki, so I would like to request my new article to be reviewed by you. Please let me know how to request that from you. SocialMediaQ (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say at a glance that the company probably is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but you should be very careful when writing about any topic where you have a conflict of interest. Additionally, if you are being compensated in any way for your contributions here you need to disclose that, see WP:PAID for details on that.
As to an article, I would strongly reccomend you read your first article for tips on how to construct it. The draft article that was deleted was nothing but praise. Wikipedia articles are expected to be written froma completely neutral point of view, just giving the facts, not expressing any opinion whatsoever. Another way of putting it is to remember that you are writing in the encyclopedia’s voice not your own.
If and when you think you’ve managed a new article that meets these standards you can leave me a message right here, or submit it through the articles for creation process. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Cangshan Cutlery Article- Draft

Thank you. I have looked over the links that you suggested and went over the article. Full draft including links and images included below. SocialMediaQ (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I said leave me a message, not write an entire article, twice, on my talk page. If you actually read all the pages I cited and still managed to write what is basically an entirely promotional page for the company, (in fact it is exactly the same as the deleted draft, just a bit shorter) I think you probably are too close to the subject and have to much of a conflict of interest to be writing about it.
You also seem to know an awful lot about formatting and coding a Wikipedia article for someone so utterly unaware of all our other policies. I’d like to mention again that if you are being compensated in any way you are required to disclose it per WP:PAID. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir (name)

From WP:RPP: {[ If it doesn’t, re-report here or contact me on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)}} - I've been reporting this page several times. You cannot rangeblock the whole ignorant Russia. The page contained nonsense a whole month again. I cannot babysit it daily. And Russian wikipedians obviously don't care. Pkeas softprotect it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I normally don’t respond to requests with ethnic/nationalist slurs in them. There’s really no call for it in a page protection request.
That being said, it does look like there is a long-term issue here, so I’ve added pending changes protection for two months. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

The Hard Worker's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to process and close that long discussion at WP:AN. I'm sure it was not an enjoyable experience. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Minor request

Hi Beeblebrox, I was wondering if I could request a minor amendment to your close here so that it may sound slightly less condescending; regardless of the nature of the request, I think a "NOPE" caption is probably not really needed at a very minimum. Feel free to ignore if you think this is inconsequential. Thanks for the consideration. Alex Shih (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sitebanned users

NadirAli is now abusing his talk page. His email and talk page access had to be revoked upon the initial block for siteban per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#User_pages. Consider doing this needful process. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ll keep an eye on it, but so far his edits have not in fact been abusive, so that would be premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Another mimic

Thank you for blocking RHawortth (talk · contribs). Could you do RHowarthh (talk · contribs) as well please? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship

Wishing Beeblebrox a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 00:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus

Hi. You were the last admin to deal with this editor. (The blocking admin, Moreschi, hasn't edited since 2014.) I believe that Ludvikus is currently editing as 108.34.206.74. Compare the argument by Ludvikus here and that by the IP here.

Their mainspace overlaps are here. (Despite what the tool says, the IP has 514 edits)

I could file an SPI, but CUs won't connect an account (even an indef blocked one, which I find a bit odd) and an IP.

Would you take a look and see what you think? Maybe the evidence is too thin to block for evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The account would be considered extremely stale for purposes of a CU anyway. So the only way to determine this would be through behavior, and since this was so long ago and my involvement was only after they were already blocked anyway, I really can’t claim to have any read on this users’ behavior. The two quotes do look similar and the editing area of interest is similar, but on their own I don’t know that it’s enough for a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Thanks for taking a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ANi

Signature failure detected.[8] --DBigXrayᗙ 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

oops. Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The thanks

Was for your edit summary. I've adored that little turn of the tongue since I was a kid. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think I heard it until adulthood, but it’s one of my favorites as well. 19:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I screwed up...

So you caught a big mistake I made on Quartz Lake (Alaska) that has bigger consequences. There are a number of lake pages that I broke. I'm working on fixing it now. Sorry about that... And thank you for catching it! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to be the canary in the coal mine. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AN

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

Hi Beeblebrox. On AN, you had closed the thread as "Close is fine, warnings stand." On that thread, I had mentioned that "these warnings without any basis needs to be overturned". I asked for overturning because they were logged on WP:ER/UC, a page which I later learned is only for sanctions like conditional unblock.

I thought that "final warning" is just as understandable as a sanction like "Topic ban", "Interaction ban", since they were logged on WP:EDR. Swarm himself said that he wrote the warnings for logging on EDR.[9]

However, it was hours later of your AN closure that I learned that there is no sanction like "final warning" and only Swarm has been the admin so far who has written "final warnings" to several editors and then log them as sanctions on EDR. This was never clarified by anyone on AN. I started a discussion on talk page of Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#WP:ER/UC where everyone including you has said that warnings are not logged on EDR and should be removed.

Some including current arbitrator Callanecc said on warnings that there is "no requirement that the user abide by it, it can't bind other admins and has no community support (in policy)".[10]

It is clear that there were misunderstandings regarding final warning and EDR process since the beginning, but it has been now clarified by enough editors. Swarm has also assumed that this is a "community sanction" because of your closure,[11] but I think that is another misunderstanding that can be avoided if you change the closure.

I request you to change the AN closure to reflect these events so that there would be no further misunderstanding. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see why any of that neccisitates my changing the close. Regardless of where they are written down the warnings were valid and were not overturned by the community when you asked that they be. Swarm is therefore correct that this by the very act of appealing it at a community forum you basically asked the community whether or not you deserved a final warning, and the community said yes.
I would like you, since you seem to have fixated on this, to review one particular part of my close, the words drop it already. Your obsession with trying to wikilawyer this warning away is becoming disruptive, so again drop it already. For your own good, I am closing this thread and see no need for further discussion of the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I’m out

later

Early fall can be a truly glorious time of year in Alaska, it’s still kinda warm, the bugs and the tourists are mostly gone, and it’s just pretty. So, I’m out for the next week or so catching fish and having campfires. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

What a beautiful pic to leave your (talk page watcher)ers with B. Enjoy your camping/fishing!! MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a recent block

I don't think a hard block is justified for WikiModLA. I don't think the user quite realized that the username was unacceptable (it implied a position of authority), and he should be able to create a new account with a different username. Or is there something else wrong with the name that I'm missing? funplussmart (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Which setting to use in in the realm of administrative discretion, and my feeling in this case was that a hard block was the best fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

My earlier WP:UAA report

You declined my UAA report, please see this declaration and maybe you'll recosider. thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Still not seeing any connection between the name and the edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind,user is discussing the issues. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Administrator's noticeboard/IncidentsI#User:Eaterjolly. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_39&oldid=1187291200"