Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
|archive = User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive %(counter)d
<span></small>
|counter = 51
{{archives
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->
{{archives
| collapsible = yes
| collapsible = yes
| collapsed = yes}}
| collapsed = yes
|search=yes
]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.
|image = ]
|title = tracks of previous discussions
}}
{{clear}}
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}
]
]''' If you would rather communicate by email''', it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.
{{Admin tasks}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
{{clear}}
] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
</big>
−
{{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)
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>
</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 -->
]
== ] ==
== No hard feelings ==
Hello, Just Step Sideways, and hello@] (who had kindly relisted the page)
As I tried to make abundantly clear in my request for opinions, I think you to be a fair administrator for the most part. I just felt that the abrupt closing of an unfinished discussion with a new question that was five minutes old without offering the chance for the questionee to respond was unfair. Misplaced Pages is ] to be won in my opinion, and the lack of consensus wasn't my objection to the closure, it was the brevity. I actually didn't get the opportunity to post the AN-notice as everything happened so quickly and I'm taking care of keeping my 21 month old daughter from getting hurt playing in the livingroom (she likes to pull her playcenter over on herself). I do apologize and just want to be clear that it was not intended to be a personal attack against you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Happy editing! ] (]) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
:I'm normally the type who just accepts any apology without hesitation, but I have to tell you this sounds and looks like a cheap excuse. You had time to put down 1355 characters about my alleged abuse but no time to put {{tl|subst:AN-notice}} on my talk page? And right after writing this you opened ''another'' thread about the close in which you backed off the accusations of abuse but still call it premature, despite the fact that literally nobody else seems to see it that way? Sorry, but your "apology" rings pretty hollow. Please, just ]. You must realize by now that you are harming rather than helping Shadow Crow with this approach. ] (]) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:: My apology above is sincere; if you chose not to accept it, that is your choice. was a statement intend to simply inform that all is well with me and I've already left that stick in the barn. Due to load times on my end, the result of me saving my post that asks a question of another user was that it came up as discussion closed. I didn't even get time to read my post after saving before the discussion was closed, it's like trying to tell a story and getting slapped in the face mid-sentence. Anyways, I believe that was not your intent, and my apology stands for reacting instead of taking a deep breath and acting. I hope that you can assume good faith in me as I do in you and accept the apology for what it is and move on to build an encyclopedia with myself and the rest of the community. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::: The latest thread on AN was perhaps one of the dumbest things to happen there in awhile (other than the request for TSC's topic ban to be reconsidered) - "everything is fine" is not an announcement. Even your "announcement" was ''qualified''. I'm not sure what the heck you were thinking doing either or them, believe it or not. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} {{ec}} @T13: And yet, in that new (2nd/3rd?) thread you've opened you propound at length with your excuses for not notifying a user, all valid, I'm sure, while failing to consider the same sort of thing might have happened to another user - and instead announcing that he "broke the rules by posting to a closed thread". Edit conflicts don't always give warnings, you know. You also failed to notify me of that thread. Really, I despair. Don't reply to me about this, I've wasted enough time on it (sorry for borrowing your page B.) <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::: ...and I have specifically noted on AN that T13 should stop posting at AN/ANI completely for a long while ... I'm hoping this "voluntary topic ban" occurs so that it doesn't need to become formalized (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::: I hope that isn't necessary. I think restrictions should be a last resort, which is why I was ever in the discussion in the first place... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 03:29, 4 June 2013 (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)
== Possible Conflict of Interest issue ==
::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? ==
If it's not too much trouble, I wonder could you possibly either check out a possible conflict of interest problem that has been raised by somebody ] on my Talk Page and which I'm not sure that I've handled correctly, or if you're too busy could you perhaps ask some other admin to have a look at the matter. ] (]) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
:The main thing in my opinion when dealing with persons with obvious COI issues is to suggest that they only suggest edits on the talk page, not make them themselves. They don't always like that idea and they don't actually have to do it, but it makes them appear more credible and willing to respect our policies. If they are slanting the article on one direction or another we have a dedicated noticeboard at ] for dealing with that. ] (]) 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks, Beeblebrox. ] (]) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (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)
==Baycrest Hill==
::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)
Say, is of Baycrest Hill? My memories of 1989 aren't what they used to be, understandably.] – ] 02:21, 7 June 2013 (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)
:Maybe I spoke too soon. The following photos in the set show the Spit, so I'm sure it has to be. If you can confirm, though, let me know.] – ] 02:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
== cand q ==
::There's more houses up there now and I'm pretty sure they straightened that curve a bit, but that absolutely is Baycrest Hill. They just started a repaving project this week from here clear to the other side of Anchor Point, at the same time that Enstar is tearing up everybody's yard for the new gas line. Gonna be an interesting experience trying to drive from point A to point B this summer... ] (]) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I've had nothing but "fun" dealing with the Upload Wizard on Commons, which is why I haven't uploaded too many photos lately. Then, to top it off, my laptop was stolen two months ago along with all my ongoing photo-related work. Thankfully, I have backups. I was sweating whether these photos I found on Flickr were going to upload before the library closed, but looks like I made it with minutes to spare.] – ] 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
:Hi,
:You granted Reviewer rights to the above user on 9 May 2013. I am providing ] on the user's recent conduct for your information. Thanks. ] (]) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
== Explicit–Liz ==
:I'm not sure why you feel I need to be updated on what this user has been doing, unless it is your intent to suggest that the granting of the reviewer right was an error. If that's what you're getting at please just say so, otherwise I don't know why I would be interested in this information. ] (]) 05:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
::Well, that was a bit testy. I was attempting to be "relaxed" in my approach. But if you need me to spell it out, I will be happy to. I believe you have made a serious mistake in granting this user Reviewer rights. His/her interactions with other editors are sometimes uncivil, he has attempted to intimidate other editors (eg threatening indef blocks for removing a cleanup template from an article), shows no willingness to discuss controversial edits, engages in edit wars, and attempts to bait other editors. I discovered this all through one of his/her uncivil edit summaries I found when perusing Recent Changes: I have had no previous involvement with any of these editors.
::I would have listed the diffs here, but I'm really not inclined to use up any more of my time after your response above. You're an admin: look them up. The link I already provided you to the 3rr Report is a good start. Regards <span style="border:2px solid darkgreen;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:lightblue" > ] ]</span> 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Here's what is missing from this conversation: How does any of this relate to the reviewer user right? Did any of this misbehavior involve reviewing at all? If it did not, how would removing the right help anything?
: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)
:::Look, it's not a badge or a symbol of rank, just a tool for keeping vandalism out of articles that protected by ], and it does not appear to be involved in this edit warring incident at all. I did look, you see, and I failed to see the connection. If you can show me evidence that were abusing the reviewer right, not just being obnoxious in some other context, I'd be happy to consider removing it but we don't remove user rights just to punish users for behavior unrelated to those rights. ] (]) 20:51, 9 June 2013 (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 am aware that it is not a badge or a rank. I am also not suggesting that tools should be removed as some sort of "punishment". What is the standard for granting use of these types of tools? One general standard (highly simplified) is '''do you have a good basic grasp of the workings of Misplaced Pages and do you have reasonably good judgement?''' If the answer to that is 'no' then it is likely that an editor will run into trouble when it comes to using tools such as Review or Rollback, or Admin for that matter. This is certainly the rationale I've seen when I've read admins' reasons for denying requests for the Reviewer tool. In this case, the editor in question wasn't just having a bad day. There is a pattern of behaviour which should be of concern. However, it seems you do not share this opinion so I am happy to consider this matter closed. <span style="border:2px solid darkgreen;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:lightblue" > ] ]</span> 21:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
{{collapse top|unhelpful and unwelcome speculation from a third party}}
::It could be that he/she is assuming that WP's admins have a checklist or written procedure that they follow for routine situations in order to ensure that due diligence is properly applied to all administrator actions or checks. If that was the case, a report such as this would presumably be all that is necessary to get a situation effectively checked and acted on as appropriate. So, the proper response could be, "Sorry, but you're going to have to spell out what you want me to do because I and all other administrators in WP fly by the seat of our pants and we wouldn't want it any other way." ] (]) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:That's a fair point, I've added a bit on that specifically to the closing message. ] ] 21:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== RFR/R reversion ==
==You've got mail!==
Hello, I was just curious why my non-administrator observation comment was reverted. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
{{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 ==
:Short answer, because I am using an iPad and have big fingers, I had already re-instated it by the time you posted this though . ] (]) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
::Thanks for the fast response. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:32, 9 June 2013 (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)
==Moose/Meese==
A response to your concern is . Thanks. ] (]) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
:Oh well, it was worth a shot... ] (]) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (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)
Hi I posted this on my talk page, not sure if you get notified.
:I'm fairly sure those are both the same person, fwiw. – ] 06:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I apologise, my intention was never to suggest a legal threat and I thought removing the comment and writing to you personally would be the best move in case others viewed it in the same way but it was reposted! (another rule I didn't know!!) I have no intention of editing or creating other posts. I simply made a huge error of judgment in trying to help a friend by setting up a company page with no regard to the rules and as it has been deleted citing "unambiguous advertising or promotion"-- I really messed up and desperately wanted to remove all traces of the article. I did not react well to being told there is no possible way of removing the article I created and I apologise if you saw any legal threat in what I said. I really was grasping at straws trying to get myself out of it! Sorry again - JulieSmith123 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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 ==
== Pending changes ==
There are a few talkpage archives still lingering. ] (]) 00:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
How would a regular user nominate pages for Pending Changes? I have a couple articles in mind. — ''']''' ''']''' 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:Good catch, zapped them all. Darn nonstandard talk page numbering. ] ] 01:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:By posting at ]. The easisest way is to go to the page you want protected and use Twinkle to do it, it's under "PP" in the dropdown menu. ] (]) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick fix! ] (]) 01:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
== My edit at Arbcom ==
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)
That statement of Pompous ass should not be there. Whether it was left by the individual or someone else it is utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 16:42, 23 June 2013 (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)
:That is your opinion, and you opinion does not give you the right to refactor other people's posts. If it is so wildly inappropriate the ArbCom clerks would have removed it before now. It can be inferred that both they and the arbitrators were aware of it and chose to let it stand. ] (]) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (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)
::Its not my opinion its policy and it should have been removed that's why I made the statement I did. If that would have been left by a non admin they would have been blocked and or scolded for leaving it. I am growing tired of admins being allowed to violate policy and then having others justify it on the grounds that they are admins. Referring to a user as a pompous ass is inappropriate and if its coming from the user its at least being ]. You can be mad at me if you want, you can even block me if you feel like abusing the admin tools for a non admin enforcing civility policy, but that pompous ass comment should not be there. ] (]) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (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)
:::Speaking as the admin who initiated the discussion on why PumpkinSky shouldn't be blocked for calling someone else a "pompous ass", I disagree that this is being handled differently for an admin than a non-admin. If the Arb clerk wants to modify the header, it is upon them, but in this instance it seems appropriate since Drmies is being used as an example of an admin that has called someone a pompous ass before. It isn't what we say or the bits assigned to who says it, it is the context in which it is said that matters most. ] | ] | ] | ] 16:56, 23 June 2013 (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)
::::But that doesn't even apply. That header refers to Drmies as a pompous ass, not that he said someone else was a pompous ass. I didn't remove the term from DRmies writeup because that is wholly appropriate and within his right to do. Putting it in the header of the string is not. ] (]) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::And it was Drmies that added that header , not someone else. Removing it smacks of censoring Drmies. ] | ] | ] | ] 17:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Kumioko totally-not-a-clean-start, I've reverted you again. So, balls on your court. I can see you love stirring up useless drama, so go ahead and revert me again so someone can block you and you can cry and wail about abusive admins until your talk page gets revoked too. This is taking way to long, get on with it already. ] (]) 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::My point was that discussing it was better than anyone reverting. While ] is mainly about articles, it is still pretty good at preventing drama in meta space as well. ] | ] | ] | ] 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::@Beeblebrox, Well since you brought it up I tried creating a new username and was accused of socking, I tried editing as an IP, which I would have been happily still doing still but guess what, I was accused of socking. So because some of your peers had a stick in their ass, I had no choice but to use a variation of my old username and since the clean start policy is complete garbage anyway, why not pole some fun at it. Back to the matter at hand, I am helpless, its a complete violation of policy but since you are an admin and I am not, there isn't much I can do but let you continue to perpetuate a violation of policy. Its insulting to the process but that's the way it is. I am sure it doesn't matter to you but I am extremely disappointed at your attitude towards this. I am also appalled at your accusation that I like stirring up trouble. What I like doing is helping this project, but there are a lot of admins with big ego's that would rather perpetuate the us and them mentality and keep us lowly editors in our place than to allow a longterm contributor with the intentions of the project to be able to help. And I will continue to "cry and wail" until the policy is evenly distributed to editors '''and''' admins. Which it is not currently. Until admins are no longer above reproach and held accountable when they screw up, then I will be there like Jiminy Cricket the conscience.
:::::::::@@Dennis, I know that's who did it. He knows better and its not censorship. Would you both like me to provide some links to examples of where editors where blocked for doing the same kind of thing? Nevermind, I would just be accused of being pointy and nothing would come of it anyway. Because I am just an editor, so what the hell do I know of policy and how dare I debate policy with too.. admins.] (]) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Do you feel I am treating admin differently than non-admin? ] | ] | ] | ] 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::No. That was not directed at you Dennis. It was mostly a statement of how the system itself works. It '''always''' favors the admins. ] (]) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I know Dennis, it's no secret you're way nicer than I am. Probably smarter too. This is just so petty and silly, and of course before simply removing those words no attempt was made to simply ''ask'' Drmies if he would consider doing so himself, instead simply charging forth in the name of the "civility policy". e thinks this has far more to do with Kumioko's well known, oft displayed dislike of all admins and his apparent belief that admins only act out malice or corruption. Right, because it is soooo rewarding, what with all the bribes, fast cars, free liquor in the admin lounge, access to Jimbo's private stash of pre-embargo Cuban cigars and high-end Chinese watches, and so on. ] (]) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
*Slightly less sarcastic, perhaps, but I don't know about the rest. My point to Kumioko being that when admin comes in, such as myself, and provides a rationale for why it should be left intact, then I am dismissed ''because I am an admin'', then you are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing others of: treating admin and non-admin differently. ] | ] | ] | ] 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
**@Beeblebrox, Its not like that at all. I do have a well known contempt for the us and them mentality but its not due to my hate for admins. Its my hate for how admins are treated differently. Also, there was no need to talk to Drmies about it because its an obvious policy violation. I would have removed it on day one but thought someone else would so I left it. When they didn't, I did. If that hurts your feelings, well, frankly, then that's just tough. Plenty of others, including you had the opportunity to remove that pointy and inappropriate "pompous ass" verbiage and should have. To be honest I think the thing that bothers you is that I did it, not that it was removed. As I said above, if that had been left by an editor and not by an admin it would have been removed immediately as has been done many times in the past. Since Drmies was an admin, it was left. Not surprising, but further evidence that what I have been saying about how admins are treated differently has some truth to it.
**@Dennis, you have a good point and you are right I am doing that to a certain degree, but its no more dismissive than the admins are treating me, so I do not feel particularly bad about it. No offense to you intended but I have been around just as long and know policy just as well as any admin but am dismissed because of my public dislike for the current us and them mentality and the way that admins are favored. Not because what I am saying is wrong, just that I am an editor treading into Admin areas. That's where my problems lie. If editors in the past were allowed to do what Drmies did, then it would n't bother me. But since I know of several that were modifed as I did because it was inappropriate, the same should be done to the admins when they do it. Not look the other way because they are admins. With all that said, I am going to log off and play Xbox with my son because I am not dumb enough to think that admins, including you, are going to change the system that gives them such a substantial leg up on the rest of us. I know its not going to happen. Its human nature, once a person has the power, they will fight hard to keep it. ] (]) 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
***Then you are choosing to be the thing you hate, and holding me responsible for the "sins of the father" which sounds like hypocrisy. I am not responsible for actions before my time, only for what I do and what I allow to happen by my inaction. If you want to be taken seriously and point to a better way, you have to lead by example. If you bother to read my thoughts on the sometimes appropriate use of the term "pompous ass" in the case that led us here, then you would find utterly complete and total parity. If that isn't good enough, then you need to reexamine your objectives, or at least your objectivity. ] | ] | ] | ] 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
== RfC ==
== 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>
Thanks for closing the RfC/U on Xenophrenic. I saw your comments and must agree with you. ] (]) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
== Advise ==
== Sexbeatrecords/now KryptonicChristine ==
Hello, because you deleted my failure for RFC/U because a user did not want to certify, may I ask you for advice on what to do next? I have had several users agree and I just want to show the user that what they have done is against policy it seems, they just don't understand it. Thank you, ] (]) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
:Given that nobody else was willing to endorse your concerns I would suggest that the wisestcourseofactionatthispointwouldbe to ]. ] (]) 16:32, 24June2013 (UTC)
I was going to remove the block, but she created a new account.......should we let it go? ] (]) 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::Users agreed but don't want to get involved too much work, thank you ] (]) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (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)
== A cookie for you! ==
::Thanks, that was kinda my line of thinking. Argh indeed.... ] (]) 18:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
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).
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for shutting down that {{oldid|Talk:Main Page|561409775|unproductive thread}} on ]. A good response. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|}
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 ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in ]. 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, ]. There are two composers on the Main page today, ] and ]. I find the response of my friend ] to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- ] (]) 08:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
] 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. --] (]) 16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page today ] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's ] from the ]. We ] today. --] (]) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Listen today to the (new) ]. --] (]) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I like your return to the well-known name. --] (]) 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. ] ] 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. --] (]) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Listen today to ]'s 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the ] when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with ], because he was on my ] this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --] (]) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I come to fix the cellist's name, with ] and new pics - look for red birds --] (]) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
] from the past month (November 2024).
]
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
] '''Technical news'''
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->
==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 ] sources which is unhelpful when it comes to making claims about notability. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with that assessment. ] ] 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
== comment on site ban request ==
Regarding ]: given ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup>
: 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. ] ] 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 @]. ] ] 01:19, 14 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 --> ''']]''' 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== Attention needed at username change request ==
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to ], but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up ] as soon as possible. Thank you. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- Template:CHU note -->
:It amazes me how many utterly ridiculous complaints show up there. Thanks for the cookie. ] (]) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | If all admins and arbs were as sage as ''']''' 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. ] (]) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Yo yo ] (]) 08:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
|}
|}
:*Uh,what?Kindofhardtounderstandwhythisisherewhenitisyourfirstevereditand I don't rememberhavinganyreal-lifeinteractionswithmyfellowWikipediansrecently... ] (]) 18:05, 25June2013 (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. ] (]) 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 "{{xt|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 "" 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. ] ] ] 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. ] ] 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Dear Beeblebrox - I have added some text indicating some notability for this event and added a couple of supporing refs. I hope this addresses some of your worries and best wishes (] (]) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC))
==Beebs==
Hey Beeblebrox
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. ;-) <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
: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. ] ] 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the ] on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
::Your new signature gave me a good chuckle :) Fun to see you back as Beeblebrox...now I can keep thinking about good 'ol ] everytime I see your username. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::All the cool kids' names start with El: myself, the ineffable name of God, others I'm sure... ] 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. — ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks all. I actually first tried to change in six years ago when ] 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. ] ] 02:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== Username block question ==
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
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 ], or Pym Industries from the ] 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? ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small ] data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide ], along with a ], although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the ] page.
:I believe the well known test case for this was ], which sure ''looks like'' a real organization, but is not. ] is the relevant policy section, and it rightly makes no mention of blocking names that are fictional or made up organizations.
Thanks, ] (]) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
: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 ]. 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. ] ] 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, ] (]) 06:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== The Student Room question ==
== Something weird? ==
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
] appears to have never vandalized, yet is claiming to be a block evader, specifically addressing you. Thought you'd like to know. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">]]]</span>'' 01:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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 ] or ] - which I believe is demonstrated on the draft page on my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:ChrisN_at_The_Student_Room/sandbox
:When one has dealt with trolls and ] headcases enough this sort of thing stops being surprising, although it is still puzzling. I will never understand people who set out to get blocked, as this IP clearly is. It sometimes seems they far overestimate their own importance, assuming I know who it is that is "taunting" me in this manner when it could be any one of dozens of nutjobs I've dealt with over the years. As they are doing nothing but playing a pointless game on their own talk page I'm frankly inclined to just let them do it rather than giving them the attention they are so obviously desperate for. ] (]) 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
::"Indifference" is like ] for trolls. Use liberally. ;-) ] | ] | ] | ] 13:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
== thanks ... ==
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.
... for taking care of that HotCat thing. Someone pointed me to it, and I just wasn't in the mood for being an admin. at the moment. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks ] (]) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:*No problem. It has actually led fairly rapidly to ] on the underlying issue. ] (]) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
:If you submit it through ] I think that would be fine. ] ] 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== ygm ==
::Ah great. Will give that a go. Thank you! ] (]) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, Beeblebrox. I think you might have accidentally placed a period inside the wikilinks to the redirect on ]. Cheers, ] (]) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== The ITN RfC ==
:{{fixed}} Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. ] ] 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
== A barnstar for you! ==
I just wanted to inform you that the first comment after the RfC tag (Which the bot identifies as everything before the first signature following the RfC tag) is used as a summary for a central listings of RfCs. So unless you want to add your support as part of that summary which will be displayed, I think you could add another timestamp between your vote and the RfC rationale
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oooh, right, I'll fix that now. ] (]) 20:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
== Courtesy notification ==
::: We were too late anyways. I the rationale manually. Since the arguments were pretty vital to the introduction to this discussion IMO, I left them there. :) ] (]) 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> This isn't technically about you, but I can't see your actions not being discussed. ] (]) 00:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== "zap" ==
:I don't know how big of an ask this is, but could you maybe consider IAR{{Efn|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}} and rollbacking their article-space edits post unblock? I've spent the past hour combing my way through some of their additions to ], 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 ], right? ] (]) 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. ] ] 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! ] (]) 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 ] case. ] ] 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". ] (]) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{notelist}}
== Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! ==
I was perplexed by your revdel of a note I left on a user talk page about a discussion that referenced them. I've discussed this further at the VPP page where I first saw the article. ] (]) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Colleague, {{smiley}}<br />Hoping you're keeping well? All is well here; still busy creating articles and improving existing ones!<br />Thank you for all your helpful assistance throughout the year, and for everything you're doing for all of us!<br />All very best wishes to you and yours for 2025.<br />With kind regards;<br /> Patrick. ツ ]<sup>]</sup><sup>(become ])</sup> 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Then I assume you have seen my remarks there and now understand what the problem is. ] (]) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
== Happy Holidays ==
::I see an old comment you made on a different discussion at the Signpost, but that doesn't really address the issue. I mean, I've cited an article in New York magazine which specifically identifies that username in its title as Lanza. You may be right that there is no actual evidence it is true - nowadays it isn't unheard of for many news outlets to run with a bogus story - but it's ''waaay'' past the point of trying to prevent "outing" with secrecy. And the point was, if we have two different discussions ''talking'' about this user, citing press releases that name him by username, he ought to have the right to know about it with a talk page note, so that if he is about to log in in three years from now and upload photos of his trip to the gun show he realizes there are a bunch of people out there who think his account belongs to a killer. ] (]) 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
:::At the time I zapped your remark there had not yet been any direct connection made by a reliable source that I was aware of. Technically, it is still outing if you ever attempt to publicly identify a users real identity without their permission, but obviously in a case like this that's an impossible rule to enforce. I've been keeping an eye on this situation in between dealing with stuff at work and it seems to have developed a little further every time I check back. At this point those edits might as well be put back as these (irresponsible, in my opinion) journalists have gone ahead and made the connection public now. ] (]) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
I almost hope it goes to a full case so this can be thrashed out once and for all, this is going to be popcorn-worthy. I'm of two minds over much of this, as I still contribute here, but there are lots of discussions over there that really dig into some serious problems that get swept under the rug here. But on the other other hand, the d-baggery is off the charts at times, Peter Damian bragging about his explosive tell-all book is like listening to talk of ]'s filming wrapping up someday. Ah well, thanks for getting the ball rolling. ] (]) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
:*I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Misplaced Pages than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. ] (]) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Hello Beeblebrox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], 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. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
] (]) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
== Feedback request ==
|} ] (]) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Blocking a Random Person ==
Hi Beeb. As a former contributor to ], you may wish to take a look at ]. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, ] (]) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you clever enough to block a random person? You Blocked a Person Who was Doing Some Updates of Current Maltese Football. There are no Updates on Misplaced Pages, and you Blocked him Forever. Well done. Shame on You.
*<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) date (UTC)</small>
One of the best campsites ever.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 scanoe out and managed to spot a bear with two cubs foraging on the mountainside. Just Step Sideways00:12, 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 Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 30 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 Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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. Just Step Sideways23:39, 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 ...? Floquenbeam (talk) 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. Floquenbeam (talk) 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. Just Step Sideways00:00, 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Just Step Sideways, and hello@Star Mississippi (who had kindly relisted the page)
Can I ask you to kindly undo your close of that AfD about film, please? There's not even one Delete !vote on that page.....and the nominator has asked for sources... that were provided (at AfD and on the page; it was vastly improved....(by me, fwiw)). Nor the nominator nor @Dclemens1971, who had !voted Redirect (which had been the outcome of a first close, see TP where I asked Star Mississippi to relist it), have responded to new sources (added twice), true but that should not be considered a reason for deletion. At the very very least please consider a relist. Whatever your reading of the page is, it is absolutely impossible to consider there is a consensus to delete at all. Your closing statement does not indicate any reason for your decision, so I am assuming it is a mistake. Thank you in advance. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
You are correct, I didn't mean to close that AFD at all. I was very confused for a minute there because an AFD I thought I had closed was still open and I couldn't figure out why. I clicked on the wrong one, I guess from scrolling too fast. I'll fix it now. Just Step Sideways00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
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. Just Step Sideways01:55, 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? Maproom (talk) 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 The Fall and since the death of Mark E. Smith I'de been contemplating a new username based on a fall song, so I went twith one of my favorites. Just Step Sideways01:09, 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. Maproom (talk) 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. Just Step Sideways20:08, 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:
I don't think that thread is ready for closure. Maybe the immediate issue has been dealt with, but (per my comment a short while ago) it's a sign of a broader problem that really needs to be dealt with—the conflict's been dragging on for years, and if it isn't addressed, someday it's going to result in a block or desysop, which is the worst possible outcome for everyone. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I guess I think, given the various mitigating factors, that nothing concrete was going to come of this. The egregious personal attack and the confusion/lack of information regarding the supressed content make it extremely unlikely. Technically, no discussion should be had, ever, on-wiki regarding supressed content. Just Step Sideways22:15, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 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. Just Step Sideways22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I thought about leaving Tercer a first-and-only NPA warning for the message they left shortly before you closed that although if I were an admin, it would have been enough for me to block them. You're obviously right that a discussion needs to happen but I can't imagine it going anywhere as long one editor feels comfortable telling another "you don't know anything" and whatever else. Thoughts? City of Silver21:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Regarding the deletion of Timeline of UFOs, shortly after the AfD was initiated it was moved from Timeline of Ufology (see here). The latter article has not been deleted, and even retains the original AfD notice. Probably a 'feature' of the Misplaced Pages deletion software, but it and its Talk page also need to be deleted. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:05, 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. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 24 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 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 ATD mandates that we must do a redirect in such circumstances. There's not really anything we can say without a single reliable source. The lack of reliable sourcing strongly suggests this is MADEUP, or at best almost totally unknown even to players otherwise familiar with canasta. Just Step Sideways18:14, 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: A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. For example, This shows that there are out-of-print scoresheets for this variant that were sold by and reviewed on Amazon as late as mid-2022. Definitely doesn't contribute to notability, but just as definitely shows--especially with all the other NN ghits--that this isn't MADEUP, even if I can't support any argument of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and one thing: an entry in an already notable article doesn't need an RS suitable for notability, just one able to satisfy V, which non-controversial SPS'es can do just fine. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
UAA
Hey since you are around, can you check if the edits this this ip was trying to make at UAA was a valid report? An user warned them on their talk page, but, like me, the user cannot actually see what the edits were and I have tried reporting some accounts before and being disallowed by a filter because the username was bad.
This is also the IP that made the extensive (unsigned) report that you just removed (so it's probably related to that...). – 2804:F1...1F:8749 (::/32) (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Argh. This person just does not listen to anything anyone tells them, but, to be fair, the initial notice I dropped on their talk page, which they may have finally actually read, said they could just create a new account, and I did say I was ok with an unblock. I'm exasperated, I don't think they are acting in bad faith, it's more like lack of clue and unwillingness to actually read and understand advice. I guess we just leave the old account blocked, you've already advised them that, for what that's worth, that creating a new one was a mistake. Just Step Sideways18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
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! Augnablik (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Durn. It was such an amusing comment from the other editor. She (I think it was a she) said she'd give you a cappuccino or else that you deserved one if you could fix the country in the morning … Augnablik (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 Beeblerino21:40, 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)
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.
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)
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 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 Sideways22:42, 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 Sideways01:34, 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 Sideways05:40, 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. StarMississippi01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
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. SounderBruce00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
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. Ritchie33311:05, 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 Beeblerino20:23, 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. ;-) Liz22:42, 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 Beeblerino22:44, 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)
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 Beeblerino02:11, 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 Beeblerino01:46, 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)
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.
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 Beeblerino20:55, 18 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 Beeblerino20:57, 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 Beeblerino23:11, 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)
Are you clever enough to block a random person? You Blocked a Person Who was Doing Some Updates of Current Maltese Football. There are no Updates on Misplaced Pages, and you Blocked him Forever. Well done. Shame on You.
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. 
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Fixed Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. El Beeblerino 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
