User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:39, 28 December 2024 editBarkeep49 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators40,832 edits →Unblocks: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:39, 29 December 2024 edit undo1.141.198.161 (talk) →Another example of problematic blocking etc: new sectionTag: New topic
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 28:		Line 28:
	−		−
	{{skip to top and bottom}}		{{skip to top and bottom}}

	== November music ==
	{{User QAIbox
	\| image = Apple tree in field, detail, Ehrenbach.jpg
	\| image_upright = 0.8
	\| bold = ] · ] · ]
	}}
	I uploaded more pics (see places), on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - ] - ]. -- ] (]) 23:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	:]I'm kinda bummed that I didn't make it back this year to the lake in the picture at the right. Last time we were there we took our ] out and managed to spot a bear with two cubs foraging on the mountainside. ] ] 00:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:: That looks inviting! - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang ] at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --] (]) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

	==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==

	Hello,

	I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].

	Take the survey ''''''.

	Kind Regards,

	]

	<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->

	==Mail call==
	{{ygm}} ] \| ] 11:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC).

	And YGM from me. ] (]) 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

	Forget it. The issue has resolved itself. Probably a cache error. ] (]) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Weird. Before just now my last edit was about fourteen hours ago. Good to see you though. ] ] 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	I have also sent mail ] ] 07:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	* <small>I have also sent mail. It was to my insurance company...but...I just wanted to feel like part of the group. ]] 23:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

	== I don't understand the need to twist the knife ==

	Just leave the guy alone. Jesus. ] (]) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

	:I just think it would be better for everyone if this just ended now instead of going on for a full week. It's probably in his own best interest to pull the plug now. ] ] 23:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	::And you think he's not able to see what's going on and decide for himself, and needs you to give advice (masquerading as a question), because ...? ] (]) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Nevermind. I'm just disappointed in almost everyone around here these days; I'm not sure why I thought that wouldn't be true of you too. Consider it a rhetorical question. ] (]) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'll cop to it being a suggestion inside of a question. I'm not sure Graham has been honest with himself, based on comments I have seen him making, and this was an attempt to nudge him in that direction, not to kick him when he's down, but I can see how it could come off that way. ] ] 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree, that was an utterly pointless and mean "question". If you want to say he should withdraw, just tell him he should elsewhere in the discussion or on his Talk—you're not earnestly asking if he's considered it. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

	<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
	<div class="ivmbox-text">
	Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

	The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

	If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

	</div>
	</div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->

	== ] ==

	Hello, Just Step Sideways, and hello@] (who had kindly relisted the page)

	Can I ask you to kindly undo your close of that AfD about film, please? There's not even '''one''' Delete !vote on that page.....and the nominator has asked for sources... that were provided (at AfD and on the page; it was vastly improved....(by me, fwiw)). Nor the nominator nor @], who had !voted Redirect (which had been the outcome of a first close, see ] where I asked Star Mississippi to relist it), have responded to new sources (added twice), true but that should not be considered a reason for deletion. At the very very least please consider a relist. Whatever your reading of the page is, it is absolutely impossible to consider there is a consensus to delete at all. Your closing statement does not indicate any reason for your decision, so I am assuming it is a mistake. Thank you in advance. -]. 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	:You are correct, I didn't mean to close that AFD at all. I was very confused for a minute there because an AFD I thought I had closed was still open and I couldn't figure out why. I clicked on the wrong one, I guess from scrolling too fast. I'll fix it now. ] ] 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much! -]. 00:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{done}}. ] ] 01:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	::so you... stepped sideways to the wrong AfD? :)
	::Thanks @] for the ping. Glad it was resolved in the interim while I was offline.I didn't watch the AfD after the relist so please do ping me if needed. ] ] 01:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I read that in Mark E. Smith's voice.
	:::When I'm closing AFDs I have the log for the whole day open, with only still-open discussions displayed, and there were two similarly long ones back-to-back. Not that it is anything but my fault but I assume that's how it happened. ] ] 01:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Why the name change? ==

	Beeblebrox is a name I vaguely recall, and respect, though I don't think our areas of WP interest overlap much. Why have you changed it? ] (]) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	:I had been contemplating it for some time. When I first registered this account, people, including myself, were generally unaware of best practices for online security. So we did things like name our account after one pet and use the other one's name as the password. Sadly, my cat Zaphod Beeblebrox passsed on some time ago. And I've been a longtime fan, due to my wife, of ] and since the death of ] I'de been contemplating a new username based on a fall song, so I went twith one of my favorites. ] ] 01:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your explanation! I once observed an editor who changed his username as part of the process of standing for some official WP role. I'm reassured to know that you're not up to any such thing. ] (]) 11:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::At the time I changed it I did not anticipate ever running for ArbCom again, but after watching the committee struggle this past year I decided I'd run again. ] ] 20:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	== cand q ==

	Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:
	* ''']''' chose ]er by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—], ], ], ] and ]—for a recital at the ].

	What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? --] (]) 16:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Explicit–Liz ==

	I don't think that thread is ready for closure. Maybe the immediate issue has been dealt with, but (per ]) it's a sign of a broader problem that really needs to be dealt with—the conflict's been dragging on for years, and if it isn't addressed, someday it's going to result in a block or desysop, which is the worst possible outcome for everyone. ] (]) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

	:I guess I think, given the various mitigating factors, that nothing concrete was going to come of this. The egregious personal attack and the confusion/lack of information regarding the supressed content make it extremely unlikely. Technically, no discussion should be had, ever, on-wiki regarding supressed content. ] ] 22:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Perhaps that's true for the wheel-warring/suppression, but the point I was trying to make in my comment was that the problem goes well beyond the most recent incident—and I think that point deserves engagement rather than a closure 20 minutes later. ] (]) 22:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I see the diffs you posted, but even without them, it is obvious to anyone who just read that single thread that these two don't get along and have not for some time. Absent any sort of explicit proposal I'm afraid I really don't see the point. ] ] 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::I suggest waiting to see if the issue continues before anyone makes an explicit proposal, or even an Explicit proposal. ] (]) 22:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I really enjoy how much likelier you are to comment on a subject if you can sneak in a cheap pun.
	:::::And I agree, I think this thread was a shot across the bow to both of them to cut this out. Let's see if they abide by that. ] ] 23:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Question re that ANI discussion just now ==

	I thought about leaving Tercer a first-and-only NPA warning for ] although if I were an admin, it would have been enough for me to block them. You're obviously right that a discussion needs to happen but I can't imagine it going anywhere as long one editor feels comfortable telling another "''you don't know anything''" and whatever else. Thoughts? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 21:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

	:That's a fair point, I've added a bit on that specifically to the closing message. ] ] 21:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

	==You've got mail!==
	{{You've got mail}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Another article for deletion ==

	Regarding the deletion of ], shortly after the AfD was initiated it was moved from ] (see ). The latter article has not been deleted, and even retains the original AfD notice. Probably a 'feature' of the Misplaced Pages deletion software, but it and its Talk page also need to be deleted. Thanks. ] (]) 02:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Huh, I thought the XFD closer would handle that but I guess not. I'll zap it now. ] ] 02:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	== "I don't think I've ever actually seen that before." ==
	About . There was also a few weeks ago for interest. It seems it happens, but I don't know how often. ] (]) 06:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	:I'm fairly sure those are both the same person, fwiw. – ] 06:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Prety weak to not realize that's never going to work, but I've given up being sursrised at such things, ] ] 08:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	::I hope you are right. Apart from being quite funny, it means Misplaced Pages gets a free RFP testing service and everyone gets to watch if they can figure out how to find a method that works. ] (]) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

	== ] processing ==

	There are a few talkpage archives still lingering. ] (]) 00:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Good catch, zapped them all. Darn nonstandard talk page numbering. ] ] 01:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the quick fix! ] (]) 01:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Why delete? There's a clear consensus that it exists, just not that it's notable. That's the perfect sort of situation for a redirect or merge. The only argument against a redirect or merge--it's not mentioned at the target--is a very surmountable problem. ATDs, by policy, should be prioritized over deletion, even when there's a strong consensus against retaining an article in its current form. ] (]) 02:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

	:@] {{tpw}} To be honest, I'm wondering why it was closed after there were two !votes that technically disagreed with each other instead of relisted. ] ] ] 04:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::I feel like I tried to explain this when making the close. Despite the differing perspectives on what it meant, I did see a consensus that it was not notable and there were no sources. I do not believe that ] mandates that we ''must'' do a redirect in such circumstances. There's not really anything we can say without a single reliable source. The lack of reliable sourcing strongly suggests this is ], or at best almost totally unknown even to players otherwise familiar with canasta. ] ] 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::If you want to infer that it's made up, then I recommend you do your own BEFORE-like search before making such a supposition the basis for any action. There used to be a strain of thought that would excoriate closers for doing this, but I strongly encourage it: I believe it's the best way to see for yourself whether the !votes are reasonable. As I noted in the AfD, I saw stuff with the "ponytal canasta" name in it all over the Internet: {{tq\|A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable.}} For example, shows that there are out-of-print scoresheets for this variant that were sold by and reviewed on Amazon as late as mid-2022. Definitely doesn't contribute to notability, but just as definitely shows--especially with all the other NN ghits--that this isn't MADEUP, even if I can't support any argument of notability. ] (]) 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Oh, and one thing: an entry in an already notable article doesn't need an RS suitable for notability, just one able to satisfy V, which non-controversial SPS'es can do just fine. ] (]) 07:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

	== UAA ==

	Hey since you are around, can you check if the edits this was trying to make at UAA was a valid report? An user warned them on their talk page, but, like me, the user cannot actually see what the edits were and I have tried reporting some accounts before and being disallowed by a filter because the username was bad.<br>
	This is also the IP that made the extensive (unsigned) report that you just removed (so it's probably related to that...). – ] (]) (]) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Looks like they were trying to comment on that report and kept tripping multiple edit filters designed to stop LTAs. ] ] 19:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Sexbeatrecords/now KryptonicChristine ==

	I was going to remove the block, but she created a new account.......should we let it go? ] (]) 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Argh. This person just does not listen to anything anyone tells them, but, to be fair, the ''initial'' notice I dropped on their talk page, which they may have finally actually read, said they could just create a new account, and I did say I was ok with an unblock. I'm exasperated, I don't think they are acting in bad faith, it's more like lack of clue and unwillingness to actually read and understand advice. I guess we just leave the old account blocked, you've already advised them that, for what that's worth, that creating a new one was a mistake. ] ] 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks, that was kinda my line of thinking. Argh indeed.... ] (]) 18:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Do you recall ... ==

	Hi, Just Step Sideways. First, thank you for responding to my recent question of you as an Arb Committee candidate. I had wanted to ask it of all 12 candidates but found using the Source Editor question template so confusing that I ended up asking only CaptainEek and you, the first two candidates on the list. Then I had to give up in the interest of time, but I sent the voting commissioners a strong suggestion to make it easier for us to ask questions of candidates (preferably just asking Wiki's tekkies to make this possible in the Visual Editor instead of the bewildering Source Editor).

	Now I have an unusual request. Somewhere in the election messages I came across an exchange between you and someone else in which you were indirectly bemoaning the US election and saying something about waking up in the morning and fixing our country — to which the other editor said something about how amazing it would be for you to be able to do that. I know I'm not quoting accurately. But I found her (his?) comment so hilarious that I wanted to send a little token of my enjoyment. Do you remember that editor's name, or the general location of where that exchange took place so I can go find it?

	You got my vote for the committee, by the way. I really liked how you explained the issue of your having been penalized for whatever you did that got you in deep yogurt with the committee. You admitted you could have done things differently but had learned from that experience. That completely changed my original plan not to vote for you when I began reading about it. If there's any place in the world where learning from life is needed, it's here in Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Thanks. I'm afraid I don't recall the exchange you are referring to though. ] ] 19:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	::"Such is life."
	::Durn. It was such an amusing comment from the other editor. She (I think it was a she) said she'd give you a cappuccino or else that you deserved one if you could fix the country in the morning … ] (]) 20:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::]. Regards, ] (]) 22:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::Oh, all the way back at the begining of ACE, that feels like a year ago now. ] ] 22:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::You mean it wasn't just a week or so ago? Maybe I missed that. ] (]) 01:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::THANK YOU, @newyorkbrad! ] (]) 05:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Deletion review for ] ==
	An editor has asked for ] of ]. 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.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

	== December music ==		== December music ==
Line 446:		Line 271:
	::::::Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the ] was closed by @] for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. ] (]/]) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)		::::::Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the ] was closed by @] for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. ] (]/]) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, ] (]) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)		:::::::I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, ] (]) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|5}} Several editors were asking for clarifications, the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop, and at least one admin said he wouldn't participate because "he lead plus the text of the first RFC, combined, is 13 paragraphs long" (and I'm sure other admins felt the same but just didn't say it). I understand Beeb is concerned by what he perceives to be an issue with the way admins are currently blocking and unblocking, but there was no rush to start an RfC here. ] (]/]) 16:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Assistance ==		== Assistance ==
Line 454:		Line 280:

	:I assume this is in reference to ]? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. ] ] 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)		:I assume this is in reference to ]? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. ] ] 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Thanks ==

			Thank you for unblocking me the past 2 months have seemilgy dragged on i tell you i mever expected to wake up and find myself permanently blocked because im a sock of a guy ive never heard of ] (]) 21:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It can be rough when you're fighting socks and spammers all day long every day, sometimes admins get a little jaded and see things that they think make an obvious connection, when there really isn't one, and people like yourself get caught in the middle. It's unfortunate but the persistent presence of actual socks and spammers leads to a certain amount of less-than-justified blocks. Welcome back. ] ] 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::]. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That comment seems in line with their established area of interest. You said you saw an ''obvious behavioral match '', but nobody else did. I'm not sure that was the best post to make but I also don't see it as a smoking gun that proves you were right. ] ] 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm taking a more peaceful stance to the edit that you think makes me a sock hence why I left a message explaining ] (]) 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Another example of problematic blocking etc ==

			Hi Beebs,

			I noticed that upi had posted at ] about a block and review involving admin {{u\|UtherSRG}}. I wonder if you have noticed ] involving a block by the same admin that has been overturned. The admin good additions to the article, which have since been by {{u\|The Bushranger}} (the unblocking admin, who deserves praise and thanks for acting decisively) with the edit summary "Restoring version of the article made by the IP editor, as it is a much superior article, and WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant as only one citation existed in the original article". UtherSRG also from the user talk page of the other editor involved, despite recognising at ANI that Note that this initial responses defends a block that had by then been criticised by numerous othereditors at ANI. The block appeal of the IP editor was about 20 min after being made, and This all strikes me as an example of poor judgement from several admins that you might like to explore further given your recent discussions on the subject. This IP editor clearly has been contributing positively, and was hit with a two block and declined unblock for good additions to an article with citations over an absurd citation claim, and has contemplated leaving. The blocking admin as part of an apology. As an IP editor, I feel posting to the blocking or unblocking admin will provoke blowback rather than reflection, given the way some admins view IP editors as basically worthless / unpersons. Please, do continue to try to address poor admin decisions in this area. ] (]) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:39, 29 December 2024

tracks of previous discussions

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41	Archive 42
Archive 43	Archive 44	Archive 45
Archive 46	Archive 47	Archive 48
Archive 49	Archive 50	Archive 51

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	23	23
TfD	0	4	4
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	2	3
RfD	2	43	45
AfD	0	0	0

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

−

December music

story · music · places

November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. Today is the last day for the election of arbitrators. Regarding my question to candidates like you, I found one so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I like your return to the well-known name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Totally my fault, I failed to anticipate that people would just start calling me "JSS" and I just did not care for that. I did make a new signature with another pop culture reference in it though. This time a bit less obscure. El Beeblerino 21:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That, however, is an area I am blind for. I'm quite happy that my real name is short enough to be useful, and while I accumulated dirt associated with it it never became enough for me to make me think about a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antonio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD on Parents Worship Day

Can you describe which comment convinced you that the article should be kept? I only see the canvassed small accounts spamming the routine coverage by the WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources which is unhelpful when it comes to making claims about notability. CharlesWain (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I said I did not see a consensus to delete it, not that I personally believed it should be kept. Just Step Sideways 19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But there was consensus to delete it since all of the established editors either voiced for delete or merge/redirect. Those who voiced for keeping the article were all SPAs or canvassed editors with no prior participation in AfDs. CharlesWain (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment. Just Step Sideways 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

comment on site ban request

Regarding your comment on motivation: given this comment made during the January 2024 appeal and the immediately following one, it seems that the editor is just following through with their announced plans due to their discontent on having editing restrictions. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I missed that at the time, but I am very aware of his yearly tradition of asking each January for restrictions to be lifted. I still think vanishing would be a viable option though.

I've seen the "block me or I'll do something to make you block me" approach a few times and I just think it's a really bad move. The user often comes back later like "ok I'm over it now, let me back in" and the answer is always a firm no. Just Step Sideways 22:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It comes a bit too close to suggesting a clean start for my taste. But in any case, the point was that it doesn't sound like someone who's primarily concerned about being unable to stop editing. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ACE2040

I'm really sorry they didn't let you back on the committee - it proves how short sighted the electorate is. Nevertheless you're still an admin and that's important for one with your experience, so don't let the result put you off from trying again next year. The overall results will come as a relief for many, but WP has its first non-admin arb and at least one or two with very little admin experience. There will be a lot of talk about this result. It proves again that with so few contenders it's relatively too easy to get a seat - all but 2 got a pass mark. IMO it's time to either redesign the electoral system or chuck the whole Arbcom thing out and replace it with something else. There is a better gender balance this time, but it remains to be seen which of them will be around when they are needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. While I'm obviously disappointed, I'm also pretty ok with it as the three top vote-getters are all people I am thrilled to see on the committee. Liz got NYB numbers, that's a hell of a mandate. I ran because the committee seemed to be in crisis and needed help, I'm now confident it will get that help.

It does concern me to once again see neutral non-votes be a clear deciding factor for some candidates. I'm not sure why the solution is to that. I also don't think Daniel not being an admin at this exact moment is really big news as he can have his tools back any time he wants them. Just Step Sideways 01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there would have been a lot of tactical voting that affected the results. When I vote on such secret poll elections I vote only for the candidate(s) I want and usually neutral all the others - if I feel very strongly I might oppose one. At the end of the day, with the exception of your score, the rest of the result was for a fairly reasonable (one hopes) committee - if they fully understand the tasks and workload that awaits them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Code AFDs

Hello, Beebs,

I didn't know what to do with all of those Code AFDs because the one participant in the discussion argued "Merge or transwiki" but didn't provide a merge target article or explain what transwiki involved. I've closed thousands of AFDs but this is a new one for me, what is involved with a "transwiki"? Thank you for any knowledge you can share. Liz

Transwiki is copying or importing an article to another wiki. It was more common in the early days. It's certainly not a normal AFD result, and to me it seems like we probably shouldn't do it unless whatever wiki it is targeted to actually wants it. My hope is that relisting them goes somewhere more conclusive, but it may be a longshot. Just Step Sideways 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw those, relisted one and then went oh hell, no. Thanks JSS for the context on transwiki as I was similarly not clear. Hope to be more helpful in the AfD queue in the new year @Liz. Star Mississippi 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cartoys

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cartoys. 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. Sounder Bruce 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	If all admins and arbs were as sage as this WP wouldn't need ignoble venues such as Arbcom and RECALL. Every busy admin lives under a Sword of Damocles and when it falls the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater. Thank you again for being a constant voice of reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased that it resolved the way it did. Mike's generally ok, and I've even met him in real life. I did not want the matter to escalate, and we wouldn't see nearly as much escalation if more admins were willing to call out things like overzealous blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've come to think that one of the most important qualities in an admin is the ability to say "Hands up, I screwed up, I was wrong, sorry". A lot of high drama, and a desysop or two, has been caused by that not happening. Similarly, a lot of people seem to like the "thrill of the chase" at ANI when an admin is brought forward for screwing up in some manner, and people lose their heads and shout for a desysop and ban for a spelling mistake. Ritchie333 11:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've often said that everyone makes mistakes, it is what they do after that is the real test of their character. Some people let their ego get in their way and just dig in, even when everyone agrees they were in the wrong. I saw that more than once in my time on the committee. It's painful to watch. El Beeblerino 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Beebs

Hello, Beeblebrox,

I was getting used to JSS but, personally, you'll always be Beeblebrox to me and I'm happy that you returned to your original username. As for El Beeblerino? Well, give me a little more time, please. ;-) Liz 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of a joke based on how people were abbreviating my name to JSS. I probably won't keep the sig very long but the idea made me laugh. El Beeblerino 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your new signature gave me a good chuckle :) Fun to see you back as Beeblebrox...now I can keep thinking about good 'ol Zaphod everytime I see your username. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

All the cool kids' names start with El: myself, the ineffable name of God, others I'm sure... El_C 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, I didn't know that you could also change your username back to your old one! TIL. Some gaming and social media platforms don't let you reuse previously used names. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I actually first tried to change in six years ago when Mark E. Smith died, but at that time users with as many edits as I have couldn't be renamed at all. By the time that changed I was on ArbCom and I didn't think ti would be kosher for a sitting arb to change their name so I sat on it until I wasn't on the committee anymore. I wasn't actually sure myself if I could change it back, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be possible. El Beeblerino 02:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Username block question

Strange question, maybe (and for any talk page stalkers, completely unrelated to the current AN thread) - but I've seen a non-zero number of accounts warned/blocked for having usernames that referenced fictional organizations. (Think Strexcorp from Welcome to Nightvale, or Pym Industries from the Ant-Man comics, or Pokemon characters). No spamming, at least not that I could see with my mortal eyes. Username policy has never really interested me, but this is pretty obviously an area you're experienced in- are these kinds of blocks/warnings in line with current policy/practice? If not, have they ever been? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the well known test case for this was Bronx Discount Liquor, which sure looks like a real organization, but is not. ORGNAME is the relevant policy section, and it rightly makes no mention of blocking names that are fictional or made up organizations.

Part of the issue is that a lot of people who warn users for their names are not well-versed in the ins and outs of what is and is not blockable. It's pretty much a daily issue at UAA. The standard is that the name clearly represents a real organization. This is usually easily established by the user making edits that make the connection clear. While we can't expect everyone to get every single pop culture reference, just kind of looking like it might be the name of an organization is not sufficient reason to either warn or block. At most a person could ask "is this the name of a real organization?" in a case where there are no edits to make that clear. El Beeblerino 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting, thank you! I love test cases - funnily enough, I'm actually a username test case-ish on the Swedish Misplaced Pages. . (What I find more interesting, though, is that the admin who blocked me literally has a userpage of the erroneous blocks they made, complete with reflections and links to apologies . With all the conversations we've been having about admin accountability, a page like this is fascinating to read. Or, at least, it is to me.)

But no, this conversation was educational, thank you. I know people who do warnings and reports may not always know policies, but I've seen enough cases where an admin actually followed through on the block that I was wondering if it was an accepted course of action. Thanks again, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Student Room question

Hi there, Sorry I had been on offline for the last couple of weeks and just seen today the decision to delete The Student Room page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Student_Room

I have a declared COI with The Student Room and had been trying to propose an overhaul to that page as it was very poor. I do disagree that The Student Room itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB - which I believe is demonstrated on the draft page on my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:ChrisN_at_The_Student_Room/sandbox

The Student Room has been an important UK website for over 20yrs, with 6 million monthly users, 75M posts and is basically the only UK student community website. It has done much work with UK government, politicians and UK universities and is quoted widely. I'm sorry I wasn't around to point this out whilst it was up for deletion.

Would you object to me submitting my sandbox page for consideration as a new page for The Student Room? or how would you suggest I approach this please? I believe contacting the deleting editor is what I am supposed to do in this circumstance, so I hope that is OK.

Many thanks ChrisN at The Student Room (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you submit it through AFC I think that would be fine. El Beeblerino 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah great. Will give that a go. Thank you! ChrisN at The Student Room (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD Close

Hi there, Beeblebrox. I think you might have accidentally placed a period inside the wikilinks to the redirect on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Patraj. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. El Beeblerino 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for being a voice for new editors. Not only is it one of the most important admin duties, but it's one of the most neglected. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't worked unblock requests in a while. and .... well let's just say it didn't work like this in the past. I had assumed that the problem was that most of them weren't being reviewed at all, turns out many if not most have a discussion, often involving multiple admins, but no resolution that ends with the appeal being either accepted or declined. It's bizarre. El Beeblerino 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This isn't technically about you, but I can't see your actions not being discussed. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how big of an ask this is, but could you maybe consider IAR and rollbacking their article-space edits post unblock? I've spent the past hour combing my way through some of their additions to Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, but given the close paraphrasing, the poor sourcing (check the history and you'll see I'm finding lots of material that was copied from one source and cited to another), could you maybe undo them before their edits get too embedded in the page history? If not, no worries, I'll try and spend the next month cleaning up after today's edits. It'll suck, but I mean, hey, it's not the worst copyright unblock ever, right? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

He really went for it, didn't he? Some people... Anyway, looks like a good bit of it has already been dealt with, but I think the risk here is high enough to just restore to versions from before yesterday in most cases. El Beeblerino 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, gosh yeah. Some people just suffer from serious cases of not understanding the problems they cause. It's frustrating, too, because it's always users in good faith causing these issues... but I suppose I don't have the power to save anybody from themselves. Thanks for doing the restorations! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Those edit summaries saying "undid revision because my account is unblocked" was all I needed to see. That's a new one on me. I think this is a CIR case. El Beeblerino 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think in this particular instance, they thought it was okay because their old edits had been removed under BANREVERT. Not a great idea, as it turns out, but as a maths person who suffers from chronic black and white thinking, I get the logic of "These were removed because X. X no longer applies. Therefore I can restore them". GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no policy-based reason to mass-undo somebody's edits, especially now BANREVERT no longer applies, and nor do I have the clout to get away with it

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Dear Colleague,
Hoping you're keeping well? All is well here; still busy creating articles and improving existing ones!
Thank you for all your helpful assistance throughout the year, and for everything you're doing for all of us!
All very best wishes to you and yours for 2025.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Beeblebrox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblocks

I was planning on unblocking Emdad Tafsir today (i.e., a few days after I noted that I would on his talk page). If your goal is to clear the backlog, you should work on cases that other admins aren't actively handling. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can assure I meant no offense, but at the same time I really don't see what the big deal is. El Beeblerino 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The big deal is I spent time and effort reviewing this unblock appeal, including reviewing the reasons for the block and past unblock requests, poring over bn-wiki edits via Google Translate, and reaching out to editors for comment. If I now have to worry that you're just gonna jump in and prematurely pull the trigger on unblocks I'm handling before I'm satisfied with the unblock request, why should I staff the unblock queue?

You also unblocked based solely on my statement that I would unblock, apparently without actually reviewing any of the underlying edits or issues, which in my view falls below the standard of what an unblocking admin should do. From looking at your contributions, it appears you've done something similar in at least one other case where the handling admins were waiting for confirmation that the editor who was blocked for COI editing would commit to doing so properly going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You said the only thing you were waiting for was a comment from the blocking admin, and it was pointed out days ago that they are entirely inactive. I did look into it a bit deeper that the degree you matter-of-factly state that I did, I just don't feel it necessary to explain every last detail of my entire thought process when unblocking.

If, as you say, you were going to unblock them today, I fail to see the harm in them being unblocked yesterday. El Beeblerino 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no harm in unblocking yesterday. I'll take you at your word that you dug into this case, but that just means that you duplicated at least part of my work for absolutely no reason other than to unblock someone a couple of hours early. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I was quite ill for a few days just before the holiday, so I missed that you took it up yourself to close down an RFC that dozens of users had participated in in good faith, because you decided all on your own that it wasn't neutral enough. I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would turn around a few days later all bent out of shape about something as monor as this. El Beeblerino 01:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the other RfC question was closed by @Barkeep49 for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Several editors were asking for clarifications, the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop, and at least one admin said he wouldn't participate because "he lead plus the text of the first RFC, combined, is 13 paragraphs long" (and I'm sure other admins felt the same but just didn't say it). I understand Beeb is concerned by what he perceives to be an issue with the way admins are currently blocking and unblocking, but there was no rush to start an RfC here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Assistance

Dear Admin

I am trying to make the correct statements to get unblocked. The only reason the blocking editor gave for the block was "persistent unconstructive edits". I have given long explanations for actions and an Admin said I was explaining too much. Therefore, I promised to not do what I was accused of doing. Now you say it is too brief. I am confused and do not know what the Admin's want from me. I assumed the point of a block was to force the person to stop doing something. I stated I would stop. What else needs to be said? Seriously, I am trying to do what is necessary but each admin has a different opinion and there is a new admin for each unblock review. I seek your help and input to resolve this issue. ISTCC 2600:1700:8BE1:7900:2D55:B574:3E91:E6B5 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to User talk:ISTCC? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. El Beeblerino 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me the past 2 months have seemilgy dragged on i tell you i mever expected to wake up and find myself permanently blocked because im a sock of a guy ive never heard of Wwew345t (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It can be rough when you're fighting socks and spammers all day long every day, sometimes admins get a little jaded and see things that they think make an obvious connection, when there really isn't one, and people like yourself get caught in the middle. It's unfortunate but the persistent presence of actual socks and spammers leads to a certain amount of less-than-justified blocks. Welcome back. El Beeblerino 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1265828071. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? _signed,Rosguill 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That comment seems in line with their established area of interest. You said you saw an obvious behavioral match , but nobody else did. I'm not sure that was the best post to make but I also don't see it as a smoking gun that proves you were right. El Beeblerino 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking a more peaceful stance to the edit that you think makes me a sock hence why I left a message explaining Wwew345t (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Another example of problematic blocking etc

Hi Beebs,

I noticed that upi had posted at user talk:Bradyb0412 about a block and review involving admin UtherSRG. I wonder if you have noticed this ANI thread involving a block by the same admin that has been overturned. The admin reverted good additions to the article, which have since been restored by The Bushranger (the unblocking admin, who deserves praise and thanks for acting decisively) with the edit summary "Restoring version of the article made by the IP editor, as it is a much superior article, and WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant as only one citation existed in the original article". UtherSRG also removed the edit warring notice from the user talk page of the other editor involved, despite recognising at ANI that both editors were edit warring Note that this initial responses defends a block that had by then been criticised by numerous othereditors at ANI. The block appeal of the IP editor was declined about 20 min after being made, and further posts on the user talk page make the reluctance to post a second unblock request clear. This all strikes me as an example of poor judgement from several admins that you might like to explore further given your recent discussions on the subject. This IP editor clearly has been contributing positively, and was hit with a two block and declined unblock for good additions to an article with citations over an absurd citation claim, and has contemplated leaving. The blocking admin admits to a default bias against IP editors as part of an apology. As an IP editor, I feel posting to the blocking or unblocking admin will provoke blowback rather than reflection, given the way some admins view IP editors as basically worthless / unpersons. Please, do continue to try to address poor admin decisions in this area. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)