User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:47, 2 August 2013 editAutomaticStrikeout (talk \| contribs)27,236 edits →Retirement: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:07, 2 January 2025 edit undoMarchjuly (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users111,738 edits →Username query: Added thank you
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
	<big>'''Welcome to my talk page'''

			{{Archive basics

			\|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/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
	]''' 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.
			}}

			{{clear}}
	] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
			{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}
	</big>

	</div>
	]



	== You done it now, eh? ==

	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)

	:*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)

	== Feedback request ==

	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)

	:Apparently I'm not the only one who tries solve the unsolvable problems around here. I'm going to be out in the wilderness enjoying the 19 hours of daylight we have right now for most of the next week, but I'll take a look when I get back. ] (]) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

	== BEEBLEBROX IS AWAY ==

	I am venturing off into the wilderness and will be completely unavailable until around the 12th of July. ] (]) 02:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Knowing where you live, be careful of the wildlife. At least nothing there will be as threatening as the ones on Misplaced Pages ;) ] (]) 02:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

	::It's been a bad year for mosquitos, they gave us some trouble but it was worth it for some time away from civilization. ] (]) 23:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Bamler2 ==

	Hey, I saw your recent interactions with Bamler2. I chimed in on his talk page, but he deleted my comments. I'm reposting them here, in case they are of any use to you. His deletion of my comments without any constructive response seems fairly typical of someone who's only here to fight and to suppress criticism of his poor behavior.<br />
	My .<br />
	Bamler's <br />
	Reddogsix's of the corrupted post.<br />
	Bamler's to the corrupted post.<br />
	Bamler's where he accuses Reddogsix of "improper action", though Bamler was in the wrong for changing my text.<br />
	My text:
	::*Unsolicited response from non-admin editor. My contributions s Andre draining time from other editors than collaborating. From the difficulty Bamler has responding in proper talk Incidents&oldid=546187788#sock_alert._block_or_change_policy_to_allow_socks sockpuppetry] without evidence, to sniping admins, to making unconstructive edits such as .
	:::Bamler, cooperation is crucial to collaboration, as is the ability to yield to the better idea, or even to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. How did you get yourself into a situation where everybody is wrong but you? And how do you expect your experience to improve if you continue to engage in the types of behavior that keep getting you blocked?
	:::Unsolicited advice: create your articles offline and get them up to snuff (establish notability, use encyclopedic tone, harvest citations, etc.,) before posting them. Or go through the ] process. Why continue the upsetting cycle of creating barebones articles live, having them speedily deleted, and getting mad at admins and the Misplaced Pages process? It all seems so avoidable. ] (]) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
	There ya go. ] (]) 04:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

	:This is in ]'s perview now, I expect they have probably seen this by now.. ] (]) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	== User:Amaury ==

	Amaury is abusing Huggle again. I know that your away, but I don't know where else to put this. ] (]) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
	:{{tps\|c}} The links you added were not appropriate wiki material. Additionally, if you had a problem with my revert, why did you not come to my talk page like the message on your talk page said and ask about it? And no, the comment you inserted in a random place does not count. - ] (]) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Whether or not my edits were good is besides the point. The point is that my edits were not spam. I went to your talk page and saw that someone else was also complaining about you making false accusations. You said that edit by 96.246.214.161 appeared to "to constitute vandalism". The user was simply reorganizing the article in a way that made sense, possibly because incognito mode is a feature that has nothing to do with privacy from external sources, which is what privacy usually refers to regarding browsers, and Google has been criticized for user tracking. Regardless of whether you agree with the change, it was wrong to accuse the user of vandalism. I looked at your history and searched your many usernames in the administrators' noticeboard and saw that you have made false accusations many times and have been informed and told to stop many times. Examples ] (]) 07:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

	I transferred this discussion to the administrators notice board. ] (]) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

	{{od}}Hi, Beebs! Just letting you know this has been resolved. It was in regards to false positive stuff. Also, I hope you're enjoying your vacation! - ] (]) 18:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	:Resolved? The discussion on the noticeboard has not been closed yet. It has been on the discussion board for less than one day. You have to give people time to have a chance to write stuff. Attempts to prematurely close discussions is another issue with your behavior. ] (]) 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
	:: Yup. Pretty much resolved. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Request for Arbitration case declined ==
	This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a {{oldid2\|563189795\|Linking to Wikipediocracy\|request for arbitration}}, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see {{oldid2\|563189795\|Linking to Wikipediocracy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter\|the Arbitrators' opinions}} for potential suggestions on moving forward.

	For the Arbitration Committee, — ]] 04:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

	::Oh well, it seems the immediate situation was resolved, surprisingly, from the other end anyway by the creation of a new page that can be linked to without fear that it will ever contain outing. ] (]) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

			]
	==mfd==
			{{Admin tasks}}
	I do not agree with your close of ] which I think a classic supervote. There were 4 opinions: the nom's opinion to delete as a stale draft, another editor's opinion to delete because of questionable notability and a stale draft , my opinion to redirect to the apparent subject of the article, and a keep opinion that the subject was notable and that the user thought it could be worked on further, and had a source available.

			<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>

			{{clear}}
	You decided to delete, ''admitting that "this may not look like the right result"'', based on your view that 1/"it was extremely unlikely that a redirect would help find the associated article" -- perhaps, but it would help the user find at least some information on the named person 2/"the incubator was a bad idea, 3/there was a user willing to work on it you would undelete -- but there ''was''a user willing to work on it.

			−
			{{skip to top and bottom}}

			== December music ==
	As you didn't delete it, someone placed a speedy on it, which is reasonable of them, but I boldly reversed it while I ask you to reconsider. (If you hold by your decision & want to revert me, I will not consider it wheel-warring in this circumstance) Your reasons, 1/ is misconceived--the pt of the redirect is to find some info on the named subject, which is present in the article redirected to--it at least identifies the person 2/your personal opinion that an accepted feature of WP should be closed down, and 3/ the distinction you drew between someone who might work on it and someone who could.
			{{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)
	Since you said, "if there is a user willing to work on it you would be happy to move it, please either relist for further discussion, move it to my user space or that of FactS[pace.-- or redirect as I suggested.

			On the Main page today ] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's ] from the ]. We ] today. --] (]) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	And there would be some merit in an argument that a person opposed in principle to the article incubator should not close mfds involving it. If I opposed articles on unpopulated extinct villages in general, should I close such AfDs in conformity to my opinion ? ''']''' (]) 13:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

			Listen today to the (new) ]. --] (]) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Well, for starters I apologize for the sloppy admin work and thank you for going ahead and cleaning that up for the moment.

			I like your return to the well-known name. --] (]) 21:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:On to the actual issue: Thing is, the incubator is dead. It is likely it will be closed permanently and marked as historical in the near future. I don't dislike the idea of the incubator at all, it was a wonderful idea, it just didn't work and the community stopped using it. In point of fact there was a previous discussion about closing it that already established a consensus to do so, but interest was so low nobody ever even took that action.

			: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)
	:Not to put to fine a point on it, the idea of retaining a page in the incubator as a redirect is nonsense. What user would type in "Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille" as a search? Frankly I assumed when I read your remarks that you had forgotten that we were talking about a page that was not in mainspace at all as I could't see any way your argument made any sense otherwise. I've gone ahead and created a mainspace redirect to the target article identified.
			:: 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 ==
	:So that leaves keeping or userfying as the two remaining options. ] and the previous consensus not to have this article in mainspace would seem to make it pretty open-and-shut as far as just keeping it. While there is no deadline this was not edited a single time in the nearly two years it was "incubating." Why I didn't automatically usefy it is I suppose a matter fo personal style. Users often comment about how an article could be helped but are not actually willing to do it themselves. So, I invite them to just say "please userfy this" and I will do so. I don't think that's much of a barrier. I'm looking at the draft right now and my personal feeling is that it is so poor it would be better to just start over, but since you explicitly asked I've gone ahead and moved it to your userspace at ]. ] (]) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

			] from the past month (November 2024).
	== Computer mouse ==

			]
	I looked over the Douglas Engelbart article, in which he is presented as the exclusive inventor of the mouse.

			] '''Administrator changes'''
	In no place in Misplaced Pages does there seem to be acknowledgement of the fact that, in the United States, Andy Hertzfeld was considered to be the inventor of the mouse, and that this error went on for 30 years.
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	I recall having seen the claim in various magazines over the years.
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]

			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	It should appear under abnormal psychology, if nowhere else!
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	] (]) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
			* 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'''
	:If you have some ] that ] what you say (it's not a subject I know anything at all about or have much interest in) please ] and add a mention of it to whatever article is appropriate. ] (]) 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
			* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

			] '''Arbitration'''
	== consensus building ==
			* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
	{{discussion top}}
			* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
	*Building consensus with you is difficult.  At the AfD for ], I added of references to the article.  You never could bring yourself to say, wow, I was wrong in my when I said, "Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject"...that airline is vital to the regional economy of ], it is covered in numerous books, has been recognized by the White House for its contributions to society, has drawn national attention for one of its crashes, and is regularly covered by the regional newspaper in Juneau.  At ] you refused to say that a three-page article in ''Sports Illustrated'' was something other than a "trivial mention", even though we gave you the text from the guidelines about the meaning of a "trivial mention".  ] (]) 02:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

			----
	::Ironic that you would accuse me of such when it is so incredibly obvious that the incubator is a failed project and consensus is in favor of closing it. You keep trying to make this personal, and I keep trying to tell you it's not about me or you, although you do seem to be the very last active particpant in the incubation process. And I modified my propsal earlier today to try and accomodate some of the concerns mentioned in that discussion, so, again, ironic. You can add a greenhouse, a portal, a magic sky castle staffed by monkey butlers and magic unicorns, whatever, it won't change the fact that the incubator just didn't work out and has failed. Neither will bitching about old AFDs. I'm sorry your edits did not force me into making statements in compliance with your point of view, I'm not necessarily one of those users who feels they must respond endlessly in the same conversation when they have already said their piece more than once.
			{{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)
	::That would be another area where you and I differ. ] (]) 03:26, 14 July 2013 (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)
	Given your recent behavior I must ask that you not post here again, dealing with you is exasperating and I don't feel it accomplishes anything for anyone. Thanks for respecting my wishes in this matter. ] (]) 05:12, 14 July 2013 (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)
	{{discussion bottom}}
			:::I don't agree with that assessment. ] ] 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~re:~~ ] ==		== 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)
	Good afternoon, Beeblebrox. I am closing out some old RfD debates. There is unanimous consent to make your proposed change to ] so even though I participated in that debate, I feel comfortable closing it out. I do not, however, feel comfortable making the change to the template. I just don't have enough experience with that kind of wiki-code. I'm going to take off the RfD header but otherwise leave the redirect along. Could you please repurpose the page in accordance with the RfD at your earliest convenience? Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 18:05, 15 July 2013 (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.
	:*{{done}}. I just stole the code from {{tl\|Not done}}. ] (]) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
			: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 ==
	== Silly thread at ] ==

			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)
	Thank you for hatting the entire discussion. I did it myself, because as well as being quite wrong, the first post was definitely not a contribution towards improving the article, but ] reverted me. He apparently didn't like me pointing out the ugly truth.

			: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.
	I'm glad it's hidden completely now. It was never any real use, and just endorsed bad behaviour.
			: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)
	So, thank you again. ] (]) 07:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

			==Code AFDs==
	== Request for deleted page ==
			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>
	Hi Beeblebrox, I recently wrote the page '']'' about the journal, which is notable (now has an impact factor, etc. I was going to make ] a redirect page as this is informally used as an abbreviation for the journal but I discovered a pgae by that name was deleted and the AfD makes it seem likely it was about the journal. Would you please either provide me with a copy of the page or let me know if I should just create the page as a redirect? Thanks. ] (]) 08:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
			: 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)
	:It was a one-line stub on the ''International Journal of Science, Management & Engineering'', which was apparently just established earlier this year. I think you can go ahead and just do the redirect, if the other journal should become more notable in the future it can be converted to a dab page. ] (]) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your response and the information, I'll make the redirect as you suggest. ] (]) 23:12, 23 July 2013 (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 ==
	Sorry, I inserted two <nowiki>==</nowiki> instead of three <nowiki>===</nowiki> and the "Discussion" went into a different thread. I shall let it stand just as it is now. Thanks. ] (]) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

			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 -->
	== Request to reopen RfC ==
	I'd like to reopen and add my endorsements to ] and see it get archived properly. My experience has been that the user's disruptive behavior spans multiple articles and I didn't get a chance to weigh in due to an absence. I also feel a more thorough review be performed but I have no experience in this area and therefore cannot proceed except to request the RFC gets more exposure from a greater variety of editors. Additionally I feel it may have been closed too early because the user who created the RfC and requested it closed was distraught. At a minimum I want to at least contribute my endorsements and comments to ensure everything is better documented and can be referenced later by anyone - should it be warranted. Thanks, <math>\sim</math> <b style="background:#000; color: silver; border:1px solid red;font-family:Century Gothic"> <font color="red">℗</font> ]</b> <sup>(]</sup><sup>(])</sup> </b> 03:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

			== A barnstar for you! ==
	:*The RFC ran for a full month, it had not been edited in nine days when I closed it, and it has been closed for a full month. There was nothing premature about the close and I can't see any benefit to re-opnening it now. If you want to be involved in dispute resolution related to the issues raised there, see ]. ] (]) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	== FYI ==
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
			\|-
			\|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)
			\|}

			: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)
	Hi Beeblebrox. Please see ]. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:47, 22 July 2013 (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)

			==Beebs==
	== Deleting the link for Heliskiing ==
			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)
	Dear Beeblebrox!

			: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)
	I was adding a link (www.heliski-russia.com) for a page Heliskiing, but you delete it as a promoting page... I'm sorry, but then there are at least 3 more links which are commercial links:
			::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)
	^ How heli-skiing works
			:::All the cool kids' names start with El: myself, the ineffable name of God, others I'm sure... ] 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	^ Heli-skiing in the Alps
			: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)
	^ When Is The Best Time To Go Heli-Skiing?
			::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 ==
	so, why you keep them and delete the one which I add? I can proof taht we knows all about heliskiing, much better than anybody else with more than 10 years of experience. Our page contents a current photos and information about heliskiing, isnt it a best information for the people who wants to know what is heliskiing and how it looks?

			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)
	Thank you in advance for the reply.

			: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.
	Kind reards,
			: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)
	Maria Gaiani <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::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 ==
	:I'm afraid you have got your facts wrong. I did in fact remove them all as you can see from this edit: . You must have known this because the next thing you did was to recreate the section with ''just'' your preferred link:. they are all equally inappropriate links. The notices I left on your talk page contain numerous links pointing to the relevant policies. ] (]) 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			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
	::Just took another look at this. The links I removed were in the "external links" section. The other links you are referring to are in the "references" section, and you do have a point. Several of them do not appear to be ] as defined by Misplaced Pages. Frankly, that article is in a pretty sorry state and has been for some time. I've tagged it for this issue and will try and find some time to rectify the problem. ] (]) 17:35, 23 July 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
	== Precious ==

			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.
	<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow\|0.1em\|0.1em\|0.5em\|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius\|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
	<div>
	<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow\|0.1em\|0.1em\|0.5em\|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius\|0.5em}}">]</div>
	'''"move along"'''<br />
	Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for and ], for and ], quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an ] (15 April 2010)!

			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.
	--] (]) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
	</div></div>

	~~:Thanks!~~ ] (]) 17:33, 23 ~~July~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Many thanks ] (]) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:If you submit it through ] I think that would be fine. ] ] 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::You are welcome ;) - Regarding part of : I am fond of Eric Corbett (not to extremes, though). He was always gentle to me, look for "Malleus" on my talk where the name change was discussed, - his "rudeness" seems to come in responses, --] (]) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
			::Ah great. Will give that a go. Thank you! ] (]) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Userification~~ ~~request~~ ==		== AfD Close ==

			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)
	Hi Beeblebrox :) I've been looking through some archives at deleted articles, and I believe ], which you deleted after an AfD discussion, is now notable enough for an article. As a result, could you restore the article into my user area? That way, we keep together the page history, and I (possibly) have to spend less time redoing the article. Thanks in advance :) ] ] 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

	:{{~~done~~}} ~~see~~ ]. ] (]) 17:32, 23 ~~July~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:{{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)
	:*Perfect, thanks. :) ] ] 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			== A barnstar for you! ==
	== Dandeline Taraxacum officinale, blow ball flowers ==
	]
	Hi
	I am a student from India.

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	Can you tell where can I find these white Dandeline Taraxacum officinale flowers, in this month of year?
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	I need to study these flowers for a project.
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
			\|-
			\|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)
	Thanks Sachin Jain <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: {{tps}} You're studying the common dandelion for a project? Almost anyone in Canada and the Western US has these darned things blooming from May until September, as much as we try and remove them. (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Indeed, in North America they are everywhere. They are considered an invasive plant where I live in Alaska, the seeds come up on traveler's cars and recreational vehicles, and they grow to enormous sizes, as you can see from this picture which I took in my own yard. So basically, if it's summer and you are in an area where they grow, all you need do is find an lawn, roadside or field that has now been mown recently and you should see them. However, from your IP it appears you are in India. I don't know if they grow there or not, but it is probably the wrong time of year right now. ] (]) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Sorry~~ ==		== Courtesy notification ==

			] 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)
	Didn't realise you had this discussion and didn't get an EC when I added a comment at the bottom. ] ]⁄] 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
			: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 think we can just move your comments inside the archive tag and leave it at that. (incidently I agree with your remarks, but I'm hoping the peaceful settlement with B will grant some modicum of clue about the right and the wrong way to resolve issues...) ] (]) 19:01, 24 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)
	== SA's block ==

			== Happy Holidays ==
	Actually, his current block is in response to evasion of an Arbcom block. I really don't know: does that make it still an Arbcom block even if the Arbcom block would have expired by now?—](]) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	:I've been looking at and... what a mess. It's not the absolute worsst I've ever seen but it's in the top five.. Hard to say, but I'm inclined to think if the final block was for block evasion, and was not noted in the log as arbitration enforcement then it is a "normal" block. ] (]) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" \| ]
	::I don't think I would fight hard against either interpretation. I can't look forward to the idea of having another set of problems like this come back, though, so I hope wherever it lands the answer remains "no".—](]) 16:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \|
			----
			'''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.}}''
	== Article that is deleted ==
			\|} ] (]) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Unblocks ==
	I was wondering if you could get me the info on ], it was deleted for copyvio problems and then remade as a stub, I cant seem to see the discussion or anything that led to it being deleted. I created the original article and worked with several people on it, so I don't know how it got deleted for copyvio problems as its wording would have been messed with by several different people over time. The thing I think might have been a problem is that there's only so many ways you can word that certain species live in an area and those sections may have gotten some in an uproar. If you could bring the article into userspace and I given some time to fix the problems I think it would be the quickest and best way to bring back an important well-fleshed out article that I don't think could be made as well a second time.] (]) 21:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

			I was planning on unblocking Emdad Tafsir today (i.e., a few days after I ] on his talk page). If your goal is to clear the backlog, you should work on cases that other admins aren't actively handling. ] (]/]) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Looking at this, I don't see any evidence there was any discussion, and given the history there should have been. I'm thinking I might just restore all the deleted edits so they are available in the page history. ] (]) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
	::{{done}} you can now see all old revisions in the history. ] (]) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

			:I can assure I meant no offense, but at the same time I really don't see what the big deal is. ] ] 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Beeblebrox, I think that this unilateral restoration of ]'d content was irresponsible. ] returns only 50–100 pages, so you should have found the ] log at a minimum. ] might not remember a deletion from 2010, but it would have been courteous to ask.
			::The big deal is I spent time and effort reviewing this unblock appeal, including reviewing the reasons for the block and past unblock requests, poring over bn-wiki edits via Google Translate, and reaching out to editors for comment. If I now have to worry that you're just gonna jump in and prematurely pull the trigger on unblocks I'm handling before I'm satisfied with the unblock request, why should I staff the unblock queue?
			::You also unblocked based solely on my statement that I would unblock, apparently without actually reviewing any of the underlying edits or issues, which in my view falls below the standard of what an unblocking admin should do. From looking at your contributions, it appears you've done something similar in ] where the handling admins were waiting for confirmation that the editor who was blocked for COI editing would commit to doing so properly going forward. ] (]/]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You said the only thing you were waiting for was a comment from the blocking admin, and it was pointed out days ago that they are entirely inactive. I did look into it a bit deeper that the degree you matter-of-factly state that I did, I just don't feel it necessary to explain every last detail of my entire thought process when unblocking.
			:::If, as you say, you were going to unblock them today, I fail to see the harm in them being unblocked yesterday. ] ] 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::There was no harm in unblocking yesterday. I'll take you at your word that you dug into this case, but that just means that you duplicated at least part of my work for absolutely no reason other than to unblock someone a couple of hours early. ] (]/]) 22:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::So, I was quite ill for a few days just before the holiday, so I missed that you took it up yourself to close down an RFC that dozens of users had participated in in good faith, because you decided all on your own that it wasn't neutral enough. I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would turn around a few days later all bent out of shape about something as monor as this. ] ] 01:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the ] was closed by @] for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. ] (]/]) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, ] (]) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|5}} Several editors were asking for clarifications, the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop, and at least one admin said he wouldn't participate because "he lead plus the text of the first RFC, combined, is 13 paragraphs long" (and I'm sure other admins felt the same but just didn't say it). I understand Beeb is concerned by what he perceives to be an issue with the way admins are currently blocking and unblocking, but there was no rush to start an RfC here. ] (]/]) 16:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Assistance ==
	# ] {{oldid\|Malta Test Station\|393371144\|tagged and blanked}} ].
	# Camelbinky reported SandyGeorgia at ] (archived to ]) and notified her (archived to ]).
	# ] tagged and blanked ] and ] and {{diff\|WP:Copyright problems/2010 October 28\|393487965\|393454822\|listed them}} at ]. SandyGeorgia {{diff\|WP:Copyright problems/2010 October 28\|393499828\|393487965\|listed Malta Test Station there}}.
	# ] ] and ] as ]. ] ], and ] finished its cleanup .
	#* ] questioned Fram's deletion (archived to ]).

			Dear Admin
	Please consider reversing your restoration with ] (RD1) or ] (deprecated, but more of an undo). ] (]) 04:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
	: I echo this request. Copyvio text is deleted rather than blanked to remove violations from our article histories. This is done unilaterally via G12 or via investigation at ]. There is no "discussion" needed. Fram would have checked the article text against the source text and deleted the article if it was found to be predominantly plagiarized. If Camelbinky is interested in looking at the original text to attempt a rewrite, maybe it could be emailed instead. --] ] 11:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
	: Oh my. (Notification bar worked this time.) Echo all above. ] (]) 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

			I am trying to make the correct statements to get unblocked. The only reason the blocking editor gave for the block was "persistent unconstructive edits". I have given long explanations for actions and an Admin said I was explaining too much. Therefore, I promised to not do what I was accused of doing. Now you say it is too brief. I am confused and do not know what the Admin's want from me. I assumed the point of a block was to force the person to stop doing something. I stated I would stop. What else needs to be said? Seriously, I am trying to do what is necessary but each admin has a different opinion and there is a new admin for each unblock review. I seek your help and input to resolve this issue. ISTCC ] (]) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. Perhaps I'm not the best editor but not everything I do should be thrown out without help to fix the problem because someone is pissed at me. The articles were not "predominantly plagiarized" in the least. And as was mentioned about ] by more than one person- there is only so many ways to mention that the population and demographics of some place are xyxxz and it's not plagiarism if that's the issue (and on that article it was. I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.] (]) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)m
	::: If the articles were deleted in error, then they can be restored without further ado. However, I reviewed one of the sources from Helderberg Escarpment against the old article text this morning and the article text did indeed plagiarize the source (via close paraphrasing). Thus, at least in that instance, Fram's action was correct and the article history should '''not''' have been restored. The old article text could be emailed to you if you want to rewrite it, but it shouldn't have been restored. I hope Beeblebrox corrects this situation soon, as we now have copyvio in the article history again. --] ] 16:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
	::: RE:<blockquote>This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. ... I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.] (]) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> Her. And that's just baloney. It all started because you plagiarized and ] It's a bit concerning that you don't acknowledge that still. An additional concern is that you left Misplaced Pages rather than helping in the cleanup, which brings us to the current situation. ] (]) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::: And now catching up at ANI and at Camelbinky's talk page, I see there are still quite a few concerns of many different types, raised by (among others) {{user\|Floquenbeam}} and {{user\|Bishonen}}. I'm sorry to see all of this, which isn't a good sign. I'm not so sure I appreciate this new notification system as I could have remained blissfully unaware of the ongoing saga. ] (]) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

			:I assume this is in reference to ]? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. ] ] 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Ok, ok, everyone please calm down. I was (obviously) unaware of the background here. I took a quick look at the sources, and the argument that an article that had been worked on by several different users was unlikely to be a direct copyvio, and I thought it added up. Maybe it didn't, and maybe the restoration was in fact an error. There was nothing in the edit history or the deletion log linking to that copyright problems discussion. Please give me a moment to evaluate all this new information, and please do not fight on my talk page while I'm doing that. Thanks. ] (]) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

			== Thanks ==
	::After reading some more of the sources and comparing them to old versions of the article I believe I identified which particular edit began the introduction of close paraphrasing and I have revdeleted everything between that edit and the speedy deletion. ] (]) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

	~~:::~~ ~~Thanks,~~ ~~and~~ ~~unwatching~~ ~~now~~ ~~(only~~ ~~came~~ in ~~via~~ ~~ping~~ ~~from~~ ~~new~~ ~~notification~~ ~~system).~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~not~~ ~~sure~~ if ~~I've~~ ~~ever~~ ~~met~~ ~~Flatscan~~ ~~before,~~ ~~but~~ ~~they~~ ~~sure~~ ~~did~~ ~~their~~ ~~job~~ ~~here!~~ ] (]) 19:49, 30 ~~July~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Thank you for unblocking me the past 2 months have seemilgy dragged on i tell you i mever expected to wake up and find myself permanently blocked because im a sock of a guy ive never heard of ] (]) 21:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It can be rough when you're fighting socks and spammers all day long every day, sometimes admins get a little jaded and see things that they think make an obvious connection, when there really isn't one, and people like yourself get caught in the middle. It's unfortunate but the persistent presence of actual socks and spammers leads to a certain amount of less-than-justified blocks. Welcome back. ] ] 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: Thanks for your prompt response, Beeblebrox. Some issues remain in {{oldid\|Helderberg Escarpment\|320021648\|the last visible revision on October 15}}, but additional revdel may not be necessary. The sentence about ] is the most problematic: shows a few significant similarities. The sentence immediately before also has similarities with that ] source. The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy PDF is similar to the sentence that it supports, but there are limited ways to word it. There is , but the source is from the ] and (]), so it is plagiarism and not copyvio. ] (]) 04:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
			::]. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That comment seems in line with their established area of interest. You said you saw an ''obvious behavioral match '', but nobody else did. I'm not sure that was the best post to make but I also don't see it as a smoking gun that proves you were right. ] ] 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm taking a more peaceful stance to the edit that you think makes me a sock hence why I left a message explaining ] (]) 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Your~~ ~~revert~~ on ] ==		== Another example of problematic blocking etc ==

			Hi Beebs,
	I'm wondering if you noticed that your revert on said page wasn't automatically accepted by pending changes, which I thought would happen seeing as you're an admin. '']]]'' 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

			I noticed that upi had posted at ] about a block and review involving admin {{u\|UtherSRG}}. I wonder if you have noticed ] involving a block by the same admin that has been overturned. The admin good additions to the article, which have since been by {{u\|The Bushranger}} (the unblocking admin, who deserves praise and thanks for acting decisively) with the edit summary "Restoring version of the article made by the IP editor, as it is a much superior article, and WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant as only one citation existed in the original article". UtherSRG also from the user talk page of the other editor involved, despite recognising at ANI that Note that this initial responses defends a block that had by then been criticised by numerous othereditors at ANI. The block appeal of the IP editor was about 20 min after being made, and This all strikes me as an example of poor judgement from several admins that you might like to explore further given your recent discussions on the subject. This IP editor clearly has been contributing positively, and was hit with a two block and declined unblock for good additions to an article with citations over an absurd citation claim, and has contemplated leaving. The blocking admin as part of an apology. As an IP editor, I feel posting to the blocking or unblocking admin will provoke blowback rather than reflection, given the way some admins view IP editors as basically worthless / unpersons. Please, do continue to try to address poor admin decisions in this area. ] (]) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I had not noticed, I was operating under the same assumption. Weird. ] (]) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Your assistance please~~ ==		== Truth ==
			{{collapse top\|not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, ] ] 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue.

			Origin of the name and where I got it from: ].
	] is on my watchlist, because I edited it.
	There was a change that showed up on my watchlist, so I went to see how it had changed.
	The revision history shows dozens of entries were made unavailable -- including mine -- due to a copyright violation.
	My edit summary says I added a new reference -- so clearly not a copyright violation. I'd like to make sure that reference is included in the article. ] (]) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

			This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. ] (]) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The background of what has been going on there is detailed in the section above titled "Article that is deleted." Revision deletion was used to remove all revisions of the page from when it had copyvios on it, so it doesn't mean that your edit was actually a problem. The ref used added is not currently used in the new version of the article, it was . ] (]) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

	== ~~Tv schedules~~ ==		== User:Dillbob07 ==

			]; so, I'm just notifying you as a courtesy. I was going to suggest just blocking this user from uploading a files until they demonstrate a better understanding of IUP, but their last edit indicates there might also be other issues that need to be addressed. -- ] (]) 01:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	Programming schedules are posted on articles for news channels. Should we rewrite or remove those schedules? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:I'm getting the feeling this is a ] case. Either that or some really low-quality trolling. ] ] 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I should think so. ] would seem to apply. We're here to report the broader facts about subjects, not to advertise their programming schedule. Such information is readily available elsewhere and generally should not be in an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

			== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==
	== Retirement ==

			I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Re: . It served its purpose: it let someone write down "Kww is driving editors away" one more time.—](]) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	:~~I've had it with that useless project.~~ It was ~~started,~~ ~~like~~ so ~~many~~ ~~projects~~ ~~here,~~ ~~with good intentions, but it isn't~~ ~~doing~~ a ~~damn~~ ~~thing~~ to ~~retain~~ ~~anyone~~. ~~Keifer~~ ~~announced~~ ~~his~~ ~~"retirement"~~ on ~~something~~ ~~like~~ ~~six~~ ~~different~~ ~~pages,~~ ~~and~~ ~~then when straight back to posting all over~~ the ~~project,~~ a ~~classic~~ ] ~~move.~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~just~~ ~~going~~ to ~~unwatch~~ ~~that~~ ~~page,~~ the ~~project~~ is a ~~disaster~~ ~~and~~ ~~discussions~~ ~~there~~ ~~are~~ ~~some~~ of ~~the~~ ~~most~~ ~~unproductive~~ ~~crybaby~~ ~~crap~~ on a ~~website~~ ~~that~~ ~~has~~ ~~more~~ ~~than~~ ~~enough~~ of ~~that~~ ~~already~~. ] (]) 01:06, 2 ~~August~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. ] ] 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met ] in ]. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. ] (]) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was ''not'' considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what ] would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. ] ] 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm disappointed that you didn't address my ] concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Username query ==
	:: Well do you have more convincing arguments than just saying that the views expressed there are "crybaby crap". Specifically, do you consider the views I expressed there are crybaby crap? --] (]) 01:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

			Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at ]. Do you think there's a ] or ] problem with respect to {{no ping\|Socceroos TV}}? I just want a second opinion before adding {{tlx\|uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- ] (]) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I don't really care anymore. I consider it a failed project and I don't plan to go back and examine your contributions specifically to see if they were whiny or not. ] (]) 01:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	:~~:::~~ It ~~can~~ ~~get~~ ~~very~~ ~~frustrating,~~ ~~all~~ ~~round~~, at ~~times~~. --] (]) 01:24, 2 ~~August~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- ] (]) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Failure is a perception that can be viewed in many ways and with many individuals, but if anyone is beginning to whine....well, let's leave it at that. I note that you have some issues with working with others Beeblebrox. In a recent discussion you seemed more than willing to ignore nearly all my concerns at ] to continue the argument of a disruptive editor who was socking to keep up the argument. While I addressed several issues you brought up...you didn't hear a thing a said. Using your own analogy, then you are a failed editor. But this is just stupid. You just seem to be very angry. Frankly, I don't give a crap about that. Calm down and discuss in a rational manner and there is always room one way or the other. But, determine you are in the right and everyone else in the wrong, and you are working on your own. There are threads I would love to close as being against the spirit of the project, but we don't work that way on Misplaced Pages or at WER.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

			== Request ==
	*Beeb, I know you won't go there to see it so as an FYI, have a look at and have an 'admin cabal'/personal acquaintance beer on me when you've read it :) ] (]) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
	**Admin are people to. Talk page discussions at WER recently have veered towards the discussion of form verses function editors as well as other comparisons of admin and other contributors. It isn't what I would like, but what I would like are editors that really want to help each other and not just point out their faults, failures or lack of empathy. AN, AN/I and other boards don't have the nickname of "drama boards" for nothing, so it would seem even the established venues are failures as well. Then again...maybe it isn't actually accurate all around and reaction is not the way to tell if something is succeeding or not. Just say'en.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 02:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Uh Mark, I think you have me confused with someone else. ] is a redirect talk page that has not been editied since 2007, so I assume you are talking about ], but I don't recall being in any sort of argument with you there.

			Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::As for WER, it seems to me to be becoming an increasingly "us-vs-them" environment, with "them" being all admins and "us" being people who like to complain about admins. That is not a framework that is going to result in retaining users, and neither is reverting those who try to stop ''yet another'' diva announcement from turning into a series of personal attacks on the users who supposedly drove them away. Keifer spammed something like six different pages with his retirement announcement, then kept right on editing. He has about 75 edits in the last 24 hours alone. He's not retired, he never was, and that discussion was not helpful, not related to editor retention, not a good thing in any way. If you can't see that then the project, which you seem to have somehow "assumed command " of is never going to make any real progress toward retaining editors. ] (]) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

			:{{done}} It is at ]. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. ] ] 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Some users who occasionally appear to demonstrate an antipathy for all things adminship, may have damaged WER beyond repair, just as they have made a mess of the RfA process. As soon as people stop tarring all admins with the same brush, perhaps we can start painting a better image of the backroom management of Misplaced Pages all round. ] (]) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
			::Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::You need to look in a mirror, Kudpung. From what I've seen, you are the guiltiest of any user of "broad-brushing" other users. (If an editor makes a valid criticism of a specific admin, you come along and accuse the editor of being part of a "brigade" and having an "antipathy against all admins".) Seriously Kudpung, do you think anyone respects the overgeneralized, black-and-white, accusatory, divisive shit you continually shovel?? ] (]) 10:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
			:::Ah, gotcha. ] ] 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps if people like you didn't have an "antipathy against all admins", these problems wouldn't arise so often. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:07, 2 January 2025

tracks of previous discussions

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

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

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

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	3	3
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	11	12
RfD	0	14	14
AfD	0	0	0

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

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

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3	none	(orig. case)	3 January 2025

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

−

December music

story · music · places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

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

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

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

AfD on Parents Worship Day

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

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

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

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

comment on site ban request

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

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

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

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

ACE2040

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

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

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

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

Code AFDs

Hello, Beebs,

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

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

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

Deletion review for Cartoys

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cartoys. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sounder Bruce 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

Beebs

Hello, Beeblebrox,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Username block question

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

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

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

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

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

The Student Room question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD Close

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Courtesy notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

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

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

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

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

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

Unblocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance

Dear Admin

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

Another example of problematic blocking etc

Hi Beebs,

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

Truth

not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, El Beeblerino 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue. Origin of the name and where I got it from: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65#c-Andy Dingley-20241028135400-Fram-20241028105400. This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, El Beeblerino 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue.

Origin of the name and where I got it from: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65#c-Andy Dingley-20241028135400-Fram-20241028105400.

This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Dillbob07

My ping attempt was a resounding failure; so, I'm just notifying you as a courtesy. I was going to suggest just blocking this user from uploading a files until they demonstrate a better understanding of IUP, but their last edit indicates there might also be other issues that need to be addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling this is a CIR case. Either that or some really low-quality trolling. El Beeblerino 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?

I don’t understand why you redirected Mary-Catherine Deibel. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? Nnev66 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. Beeblebrox 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote "A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe." This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. Nnev66 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was not considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what CSD would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. Beeblebrox 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't address my WP:NOTARG concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. Nnev66 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Username query

Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at WP:UAA. Do you think there's a WP:CORPNAME or WP:ISU problem with respect to Socceroos TV? I just want a second opinion before adding {{uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. Beeblebrox 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine article? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Done It is at User:Makeandtoss/Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. Beeblebrox 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)