Revision as of 20:03, 4 February 2014 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,441 edits →The IP is a sock and a troll and is supposed to be blocked but don't you worry about that: IRONY ALERT← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:11, 4 February 2014 edit undoLeaky caldron (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,414 edits →The IP is a sock and a troll and is supposed to be blocked but don't you worry about thatNext edit → | ||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
:Ask yourself the same question. Is the removal of old notices a "substantive issue" or is it just something that an awful lot of users, yourself obviously included, do sometimes? Any user that is not banned entirely is perfectly free to remove almost anything they want from their talk page. That is site policy, not my opinion, and edit warring over it is always the wrong thing to do. I find it supremely ironic that you would get so upset about my misclick at your talk page while defending your imaginary right to force your will on another user at their talk page. ] (]) 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | :Ask yourself the same question. Is the removal of old notices a "substantive issue" or is it just something that an awful lot of users, yourself obviously included, do sometimes? Any user that is not banned entirely is perfectly free to remove almost anything they want from their talk page. That is site policy, not my opinion, and edit warring over it is always the wrong thing to do. I find it supremely ironic that you would get so upset about my misclick at your talk page while defending your imaginary right to force your will on another user at their talk page. ] (]) 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Your wrong, not for the first time. As far as I could tell he was blocked and should not have been able to edit the Talk Page. I find it "ironic" that Admins such as you are happy to defend well known, previously blocked trolls. (I know who it is as well and they still have at least 1 active account). Don't misclick at my talk page again. In fact, don't click there at all. ]] 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:11, 4 February 2014
Welcome to my talk page
I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.
If you have a question or comment about an arbitration matter it would probably be better to post it at the relevant case page or the ArbCom noticeboard unless it is specifically about my own actions.
I am an oversighter, but I will not be very active in that capacity during my term on the Arbitration Committee. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion.
Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.
Maya Angelou
Hi Bee, thanks for your recent change to Maya Angelou. I disagree with your changes, though; the two paragraphs you omitted contained some important information about Dr. Angelou's poetry, like her recitation of her inaugural poem. I re-wrote the section after completing Poetry of Maya Angelou, and it's much shorter than what was there before. What do you think about putting it back? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- The usual practice in such cases is to provide a brief summary and a pointer to the sub-article, so four long paragraphs seemed a bit excessive to me, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!Message added 07:04, 31 December 2013 (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.
LlamaAl (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Could you please answer mi e-mail? LlamaAl (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
124.149.166.248 and multiple socks
Would you mind looking at the behaviour related to a single IP hopping editor that is happening here here and here as well as on the associated talk pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is "IP hopping" is not equal to "using multiple identities for purposes of deceiving others" which would constitute socking. In fact, a user may be totally unaware they are even doing it, or they may be moving around during the course of their day while editing from a mobile device. If you have concerns about their editorial behavior I suggest you bring them up with the user or at a relevant noticeboard, but as far as socking goes there does not appear to be any evidence of an intent to deceive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The IP is confused and angry and is making wild and unreasoned attacks. He/she is causing considerable disruption across the three article I linked above, as can be easily seen on the associated talk pages. The attacks show no sign as abating. I know of no "relevant noticeboards" on Misplaced Pages that deal skilfully with behaviour like this from IP hopping editors. There is little point blocking them. Given that no administrative support seems available in cases like this, would you advise content editors to just walk away? Or could the article be protected from IPs? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't ask me melodramatic leading questions like that. Asking one specific admin and not getting the reply you wanted does not equate to "no administrative support is available." Feel free to consider any of the following options:
- So you see, all sorts of assistance, both from admins and others, has been developed for you to turn to when you are unable to resolve something yourself, which as far as I can tell you have not actually tried yet.
- Not to put to fine a point on it, but today is my first full day as a member of the arbitration committee. I'm kind of busy with the business the community elected me to deal with and not looking to take on additional problems at the very bottom of the dispute resolution ladder right now. I am every bit as much a volunteer as you are and am not obligated to do whatever you ask. That is exactly why we have centralized noticeboards for such issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah... I wasn't aware of WP:RFPP. Thank you for that, and apologies for being a nuisance. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Epipelagic is lying, he has been defaming me on many pages, for example here and here. I have explained to him why I come from different IPs days ago.
- Do you know what is the best place for reporting uncivil and disruptive behaviour like that? 124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Beeblebrox!
| |
Hello Beeblebrox: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Hey Boss
Happy new year. Hope you got to abuse your new powers already. Thanks for serving: no good deed will go unpunished. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it's a real hoot. Apparently it is a sort of tradition for various trolls, malcontents, and other blocked or banned users to immediately try their luck with/harass/threaten the new committee via email. It's delightful. But alas, no chance to abuse the powers just yet. I'm sure the opportunity will present itself soon enough. Of course I am handling it all like a boss. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nice. OK, in that case, since you suffered enough, I'll give you fair warning: don't open the manilla envelope postmarked "Chattanooga", with the word "FRAGGILE" on it. It's a big old dog turd. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Fraggile"? Isn't that Italian? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nice. OK, in that case, since you suffered enough, I'll give you fair warning: don't open the manilla envelope postmarked "Chattanooga", with the word "FRAGGILE" on it. It's a big old dog turd. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism notice
I wasn't sure if you still had (or ever had) Chatanika, Alaska on your watchlist. A recent edit tipped me off to Quellcrist49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who went even further with Fox, Alaska. All since reverted, but who knows how much further this will go. The funny thing about it? There really are a number of properties alongside or within sight of the Old Steese which are genuine eyesores, and the "Ester lesbians" may be a metaphor for the folks who run borough government and receive complaints all the time about such places. Still, the way this was written falls somewhere in between a flight of fancy and a hoax. Letting you know concurrent with warning the user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did see the "flaming arrow" thing, which I figured was just someone posting wild rumors. Looking at the fox edits it is much more apparent that it is deliberate vandalism, possibly straying into BLP territory, so I've revdeleted those edits. When I became an arb I nuked my watchlist, except for Alaska stuff and ArbCom stuff. Nice, cut and dried vandal fighting is kind a nice break from the complicated angry disputes that come to the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Checkuser
How can I submit a checkuser request for my own username? --Zyma (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Checkuser is a tool that is never used without a compelling reason, and I can't imagine any reason you could give for wanting to do that that would convince anyone to run a check. Presumably you already know where you are and what kind of computer and software you are using. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom case
You need to move your comment - use a section heading similar to those used by Guy Macon or EatsShootsAndLeave. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox is actually an arbitrator --Rschen7754 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm actually an idiot. Sorry about that. And me an ex-Clerk! Double trouting! Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ha. Lols for the day. Basalisk ⁄berate 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's ok, I'm as surprised as anyone that I'm an arb. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ha. Lols for the day. Basalisk ⁄berate 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm actually an idiot. Sorry about that. And me an ex-Clerk! Double trouting! Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Administrator hopefuls
Hey Beeblebrox, in a follow-up to the last time I ended up leaving a message on your talk page, I had found the page revolving around administrator hopefuls where I had to modify the part on my page so that it can be listed there. When it was done, my name was added to the "User with at least 30 edits in the last two months" section which is reserved for the active members. What's the link for those who are on that list to end up filling out the application information to become administrators like you? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:27, January 8 2014 (UTC)
- If I understand your question correctly, you are looking for WP:RFA. It's not so much an application as it is a week-long test of your knowledge of WP policies coupled with a thorough review of your history here, especially your interactions with other users. The days when being and admin was "no big deal" are well and truly gone and the process now can be very discouraging of you aren't ready for it. If I were you, I would read WP:GRFA and consider very carefully what your chances are of passing the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Besides the punitive block that Nightscream did last month as part of the RFA's "have you been blocked in the past 6 months" comments, I did have earlier blocks because some contributors have been using my IP Account as seen in my block log. Luckily, there was a contact back then where I had to notify each administrator of this. I have reverted vandalism (with the latest one involving someone tampering with the page for Two-Face) and used edit summaries with my common edit summaries including "Adding details to history," "Adding details to plot," "Adding details to media appearance," "correcting some links," "Do you have proof of the information I just removed," "creating new page," and "making some additions/corrections." With help from Trivialist, I had to help keep some anonymous contributors from claiming that The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth was made by The Jim Henson Company (which the show I just mentioned is not of their creation). I have also been working on updating the episode guide for the episodes of Street Sharks that I have seen on YouTube even though TheRedPenOfDoom removed the character sections that were there way before he removed them. Did I leave anything out in the descriptions for WP:RFA? If so, please let me know. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:50, January 8 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you are understanding what I have tried to communicate. An RFA is a sort of "torture test" where you will be sharply criticized by other users. They will be looking for a candidate who has some experience with admin-related processes such as WP:AIV or WP:AFD. They will be looking for solid knowledge of the deletion policy and the various ways that articles come to be deleted, as well as thorough knowledge of the blocking policy and an understanding of how it is enforced. They will be looking for a user who is able to communicate clearly and responds sensibly when their actions are challenged. You will be asked a dozen or more questions and even one wrong answer can can ruin your chances. It's quite an ordeal to go through, and if you do succeed that's when the real difficulties begin. It is not a process to be entered into lightly, and if you aren't thoroughly prepared for it you will almost certainly fail. Again, I would suggest you read WP:GRFA and consider whether this is really something you think you would succeed at right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrator workshop proposal
The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. --Rschen7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to lodge a complaint against Mrm7171
Mrm7171 on the health psychology talk page called me a "troll." I would like him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
He also called me a troll in a comment he made when editing the health psychology page. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Iss246 has posted on his 'talk page' masses of false, derogatory postings. He has called me a troll on his talk page, and made false judgements about my qualifications. He wrote this.."You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. He also called me stupid etc etc on his talk page User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. For the record, although it matters none, I hold a Doctorate in Psychology and am certainly not a troll. I have asked him to delete these extremely defamatory statements, in the past, but he refused, even after I corrected him and provided evidence to the contrary. Currently iss246 refuses to engage in discussion but rather post information that is based on a 1986 reference I have read today, that does not support his statements. Thank you for your time. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not at all sure why this has been brought to my talk page, but I will provide some advice for the both of you:
- Stop calling each other names, including "troll" or engaging in other personal attacks. That is never the way to solve a dispute, be it on or off wiki.
- Consider pursuing some form of dispute resolution
- Just to re-iterate, claiming any sort of real-life credential is irrelevant as we rely on reliable sources, not personal expertise.
- Consider whether this is really worth arguing over or if it might just be time for both of you to let it go.
- hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
---For the record, I did not call Mrm7171 a troll. But four times on the health psychology page in a matter of days, he called me a troll. Iss246 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course you did iss246, on your User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. It is still there? The fact that I have a Doctorate in psychology is 'totally irrelevant.' I agree. And no iss246, I am not a troll. I feel embarrassed that you posted this on a busy administrators page also. So apologies to Beeblebrox. My exact words yesterday were, "let's stop the personal attacks and focus on editing." So fully agreed Beeblebrox.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Proposed decision
A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. --Rschen7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
New proposals at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream closed
An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
CheckUser request
Good morrning,
I'm not sure, if this is actually the right place for my request, but since CheckUser access is necessary to answer my question, and you apparently have just that, I suppose I could do worse than to try my luck here.
The situation is the following: For several years I have edited mass murder-related articles on Misplaced Pages, and created amongst others the List of rampage killers. On June 20, 2012 a user named KnaveSmig posted at my talk page, offering me to download an Excel-file supposedly containing his own compilation of mass murderers, as well as 16 hours of songs related to the subject. At the time I was unsure how to deal with this, on the one hand being curious about the possibly salvageable information, on the other hand being suspicious about downloading unrequested material from an unknown person and risking an infection of my computer with malware. In the end my suspicious side prevailed and I ignored the files, though contemplated for a while to write a reply to explain myself. Considering the matter not that important I delayed writing said reply until I came to the conclusion that too much time had passed to invest any effort in something the addressed person may not even read, after all KnaveSmig left no indication that he ever came back to Misplaced Pages.
Then the Sandy Hook shooting happened, and when information was published in the media that Adam Lanza had a pronounced interest in mass murder and created a spreadsheet listing historic mass murderers I already had a bad feeling in my guts. But then, during my studies of mass murders I have come across several people who have compiled similar lists, and there are probably a lot of others who do the same in less public places than the internet, so I composed myself thinking that this was just a coincidence, and there's probably no connection between KnaveSmig and Adam Lanza. Then information surfaced that Lanza had a Misplaced Pages account and edited several articles a couple of years earlier under a different name. I waited for the media to announce that Lanza had also used the alias KnaveSmig, but this never happened, and so I assumed my suspicions were probably unfounded.
It remained that way, until recent reports stated that Lanza had also posted at a forum dedicated to the Columbine massacre around the same time he had left the note on my talk page. The pseudonym he used there was Smiggles. And since the writing style of Smiggles is comparable to KnaveSmig's my suspicions are revived that the two may be the same person.
So, to cut a long story short, would it be possible for you to check if KnaveSmig's IP address is located in Connecticut, maybe even the Newtown area, and thus confirm or refute my suspicion that I have been contacted by Adam Lanza a mere six months before the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? This question is haunting me for about a year now, and I'd really like to get some closure on that one. Thank you. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC))
- So, I have kind of a good news/bad news reply here. We'll start with the bad: I won't be running that check and I doubt anyone else would either. I do have CU access, but I only took in case I need during my term as an arb and I am not an active user of it. Being curious about something, even something spooky like this, is almost certainly not going to be accepted as a valid reason for doing such a search.
- The good news is that despite all that I am pretty sure this was not him. If you search news reports about this you can find some where they dropped clues about specific edits, and if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you can figure out the username they are referring to, and this isn't it. The account that was suspected of being him edited articles about mass shootings, the account you mention never did. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I suspected that my request may not go through, but I had to try anyway. The problem is, I already know Lanza's user name here on Misplaced Pages, but he used that in 2009/10 only a couple of times, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, if he forgot his password and created a second account later on for the single purpose of engaging in a conversation with me. I remember that back in June 2012 I've performed a quick Google search for the name KnaveSmig to find out if he is trustworthy, or just some kind of a prankster, but the search yielded nothing besides his posts on my talk page. Even then I wondered what Smig may stand for, and thinking that it's merely an abbreviated form of Smiggles seems just too plausible. Considering what I know about KnaveSmig and Lanza I think there's a reasonable chance that they are the same person, but I suppose I will never know for sure. Anyway, thank you for your time. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC))
Deletion review for Ron Duncan
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ron Duncan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- @CrazyAces489: There appear to be several problems here.
- You seem to misunderstand the purpose of DRV as well. It is only for reviewing the administrative decision to delete an article. You should only open one if you believe I misinterpreted the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ron Duncan.
- So, you've got a technical problem, a policy problem, and a factual error there. If you believe the draft article is ready to be returned to article space you can just execute a WP:PAGEMOVE to return it, DRV is not the proper venue for pursuing that option. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I want to put it back into article space, but I don't want it to be speedily deleted. So I thought that deletion review would have been the best thing to do. Any ideas? CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like you have made significant enough changes to it that it would not be speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article, and I don't think it would qualify for any of the other criteria either. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any help in moving the page as well as cleaning up the page would be appreciated. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for oversight
Can I get the 9 most recent revisions on my talk page deleted. The block has been lifted so there's no reason for it to be there. Finealt (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Normally a WP:RFO would be handled off-wiki, but in this case I think we can deal with it here since this is absolutely not something that qualifies for suppression, or even revision deletion. These are tools used to remove serious problems, not just edits you don't happen to like. You are of course free to just remove the content from your talk page, which it looks like you have already done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Disappointed
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=592190539&oldid=592184696 I'm disappointed.
I voted for you, and I'm sure I've supported you in the past.
That comment is disgraceful. There are bigger things than being seen to conform. I used to think you knew that. Shame on you - I guess it's true what they say about power - if only it was real power, eh?
You're not the first person I've seen this happen to, but I so hoped for better from you.
Ah, well...Disappointed. Begoon 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that in that comment that has to do with "being seen to conform." This is about the right way and the wrong way to approach such an issue when you object to it. Unilaterally modifying an office action with absolutely no prior discussion is pretty much guaranteed to cause a dramafest, and I know Kww knew that when he did this. So I guess we are both feeling kind of the same way, except I am disappointed in Kww and not myself.
- There are over four million articles on WP, and only five that are subject to office actions. For those five articles, and only those five, nobody is supposed to ever modify those actions without the express permission of WMF staff. Nobody. I do not and have not supported the use of PC2 anywhere, and it may be that there is reason to ask the foundation not to use it even in an office action, but going ahead and doing it and then starting a discussion is exactly the wrong way to go about it. I
- 'Id like to see this end peacefully with nobody's head on the chopping block and I do think that is still possible despite the fact that he deliberately ignored a bright-line rule with the full awareness that he was doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. The way to avoid any "heads on chopping blocks" would, it seems to me, then, to have been just to decline the case request. Any tit-for-tat motion inspired by Phillippe's improper reaction and foot stamping, especially given the history making it look like revenge, is unnecessary and divisive. If you don't like what Kww did, then leave him a note on his bloody talk page.
- Anyway, as I say, thanks for the reply - we'll probably just have to differ on this - reasonable people can do that I guess. Begoon 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think if, as some suggested, the circumstances had been just a little bit different this all might have gone down differently. Like if there was an edit war going on or something and he stepped in and temporarily upped the protection to stop it I doubt anyone would have cared. Coming out of nowhere and just doing it without discussion and without any urgent reason to do so is what made this look like deliberate provocation. And it worked all too well. That is the crux of this as far as I am concerned, and the reason I support the admonishment. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok - as I say, we differ. Even given the "way it went down", while you guys are doing admonishments, one of those issued to Phillippe for the chilling effect and near WP:NLT of saying he'd "consulted WMF legal" about Kww's actions, his overall "Lèse-majesté" approach, and, fuck it, just overbearing non-collegial, threatening response in implying he'd summarily desysop but would rather arbcom did it for him, then openly suggesting Brad organised just that, might just seem a wee bit more balanced when hindsight comes to look at all this. I realise he subsequently climbed down from part of that podium in the face of reaction, but still... Anyway, I've taken up enough of this page, so I'll leave it there - thanks again for the discussion and responsiveness. Cheers. Begoon 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think if, as some suggested, the circumstances had been just a little bit different this all might have gone down differently. Like if there was an edit war going on or something and he stepped in and temporarily upped the protection to stop it I doubt anyone would have cared. Coming out of nowhere and just doing it without discussion and without any urgent reason to do so is what made this look like deliberate provocation. And it worked all too well. That is the crux of this as far as I am concerned, and the reason I support the admonishment. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrapping up the Kafziel case
Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF and perhaps vote in the "votes" section to enable us to close the case. Roger Davies 10:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"Aggro"
I've given up commenting on the case page. I'll just point out that when you have a WMF officer and an Arbcom member in apparent agreement that you need to be immediately desysopped, making your case visible and public is a defensive maneuver, not aggression.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Self-requested blocks
Hello, Beeblebrox. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.
- Why do you impose a list of requirements, rather than just saying "I will block you if you ask me to"? (I am not disagreeing with you, just wanting to know your thoughts on the matter.)
- In your experience, how often, if at all, do you get such requests?
- Do such blocks ever cause problems of any sort, and if so, how? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The list of requirements is so that users understand that this is an unusual circumstance and they need to consider it very carefully before requesting it.
- Possibly as a result of that, combined with the wikibreak enforcer, requests are pretty rare. once or twice a year is about it.
- I've never had any serious problems with one. I did have one user who used an IP to come here and ask me to lift it early. I ignored them, and when the block was over they thanked me for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Noticeboard edit summary
You think you've got a problem? Autocorrect keeps changing my good curseword to mother fuchsia! darwinbish ☠ 23:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Message on DS review page
Hello Beeblebrox,
I've left the message below the DS Review page , and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Misplaced Pages's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Misplaced Pages, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
The IP is a sock and a troll and is supposed to be blocked but don't you worry about that
Edits like your's make editor's like me just want to not bother. Why not deal with the substantive issue with this editor? And stop fucking with MY talk page. Cheers. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ask yourself the same question. Is the removal of old notices a "substantive issue" or is it just something that an awful lot of users, yourself obviously included, do sometimes? Any user that is not banned entirely is perfectly free to remove almost anything they want from their talk page. That is site policy, not my opinion, and edit warring over it is always the wrong thing to do. I find it supremely ironic that you would get so upset about my misclick at your talk page while defending your imaginary right to force your will on another user at their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your wrong, not for the first time. As far as I could tell he was blocked and should not have been able to edit the Talk Page. I find it "ironic" that Admins such as you are happy to defend well known, previously blocked trolls. (I know who it is as well and they still have at least 1 active account). Don't misclick at my talk page again. In fact, don't click there at all. Leaky Caldron 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)