| Revision as of 18:38, 26 January 2015 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,441 edits →Dunning–Kruger effect: dne← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:09, 26 January 2015 edit undoFlossumPossum (talk | contribs)109 edits →The unblockablesNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry.] (]) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry.] (]) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Misplaced Pages is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. ] (]) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | :::While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Misplaced Pages is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. ] (]) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Disregard that loser, he seems to have decided to make an actual account and be constructive. Though his edits completely suck and he doesn't know half of what he's doing. But spamming Random Article till you find something interesting to change can be ok. ] (]) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Credits == | == Credits == | ||
Revision as of 23:09, 26 January 2015
Welcome to my talk page
I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.
If you have a question or comment about an arbitration matter it would probably be better to post it at the relevant case page or the ArbCom noticeboard unless it is specifically about my own actions.
I am an oversighter, but I will not be very active in that capacity during my term on the Arbitration Committee. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion.
Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.
The unblockables
Excellent essay man, often when you meet them and try reporting them, the discussion will usually shift to the one reporting getting banned Loganmac (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Slate likes it too ... --evrik 19:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently. Maybe when I'm not an arb anymore I will share my own thoughts on the GGTF decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you integrate this essay , Misplaced Pages:No get out of jail free cards? --evrik 02:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently. Maybe when I'm not an arb anymore I will share my own thoughts on the GGTF decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent essay. I suggest letting the essay have its own talk page, where supports and opposes could be expressed; "what-to-do-about-its" could be worked out, etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've kept it this way because it's a user essay and hadn't seemed to attract much attention up until now (it's been there almost four years). I also keep it in my userspace because I wrote it to reflect my opinion. I have seen folks move their user essays out into project space, only to see them modified over time into compromised, waffling writing as everyone tried to make it conform to what they think. If this level of attention is anything more than a brief uptick because of the Slate thing I may at least give it a talk page though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry.65.29.77.61 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Misplaced Pages is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disregard that loser, he seems to have decided to make an actual account and be constructive. Though his edits completely suck and he doesn't know half of what he's doing. But spamming Random Article till you find something interesting to change can be ok. FlossumPossum (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Misplaced Pages is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Credits
Sure ! Usually, I always do this and that at the creation of the page. I'm sorry to have forget to do it before you asked !
Thanks for you essay. I hope that it will help us. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with that so quickly! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year
|
Happy New Year !!! | |
| Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
2015 already (well, here at least)
Hi Beeb. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and welcome back to the madhouse. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not quite back to normal as I am doing one last, particularly horrible arbcom case. I can't wait to take all this arbitration stuff back off my watchlist . Hope all is going well out there in the jungle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Hello there! I need an administrator's assistance. I recently edited the article Oobi at Work and added a list of episodes with a source. However, a ClueBot reverted my edit. My username is new here on Misplaced Pages but I have been editing as an anonymous user until I realised I wanted to become a real user, so I am familiar with this kind of thing, but I would still like to know whether or not you think the list I added is wrongly done. I've seen some pages with all-out boxes for episodes, but some pages (like Didi and B.) listed them the way I did. Please give me any opinions! Derbundeskanzler (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to make of that. ClueBot is designed to remove vandalism, and your edit doesn't look like that. I would suggest you report it at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Ban
Hi, an indefinite topic ban is too harsh. A definite ban of say 6 months would have sufficed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus, I'm afraid, was for an indefinite ban; I think I was the only editor who voted for a shorter tban. As such, it was out of Beeblebrox's hands. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lukeno94 is of course correct, I merely closed the discussion and informed you of the result, it was not my decision and consensus was nearly unanimous. I would, however, add that indefinite does not mean infinite and if you follow the advice I gave on your talk page you could find the ban lifted in less than six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1
Talk:Gordon B. Hinkley
Re:this edit of yours from 23:03, 16 January 2015 — The auto archive was working just fine: if you look at the talk page history, at 17:33, 15 September 2014, User:Lowercase sigmabot III properly archived the talk page, but on 18:03, 16 January 2015, User:Mormography mistakenly reverted the bot. Unfortunatly your manual edit on 23:03, 16 January 2015 has created significant duplication between Archive 2 & 3. I have added the archive bot info back to the talk page, as that should be non-controversial, but I am loth to trim down the material in Archive 3 that is a duplicate for what is found in Archive 2, given I am trying to avoid another barrage of accusations against me about my actions on that article & it's talk page. Given that you are the person that created that manual archive, would you be willing to remove the duplicate info in Archive 3? * 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's messed up. I'll take a look at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality of an Arb
| :I don't generally discuss arbcom business on my talk page. If you have something to say about the proposed decision feel free to do so on it's talk page . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Hello, so I skimmed through the proposed decision, nice work, but I have a problem, for the first hours I thought I wasn't getting sanctioned so I stopped paying attention, but then I read someone had proposed a topic ban against me, and a SPA accusation (which I don't really understand the reasoning) anyway I came to know of remakrs done by the proposer Arb and voter to ban me that seriously begs to question his/her neutrality, seeing that all the votes against users like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel are oppose and users like me, TitaniumDragon, DungeonSiege, etc are in favor. This isn't the problem, and I think I can send you this by email if it violates a rule, but the Arb seems to have a strong position regarding GamerGate, and gender politics in general. Anyway I realize there are 4 other arbs voting to ban me, again, for being a SPA, which as my contributions history shows, is in my opinion not the case (but this isn't the point), I feel personally not being given a fair judgement when one of them seems to have their personal opinions or idelogy come first instead of their unbiased interpretations and applications of Misplaced Pages rules, and I think he/she should reccuse from voting in this case to not further damage the image of the project. I could send the evidence by email. Thanks! It's also worth noting this user already recussed themselves on the discussion to take the case so he/she even admits to this. Loganmac (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Now I've come to find that ANOTHER voter has strong positions regarding GamerGate, this is seriously making me ashamed. Again all votes against Ryulong, NorhBySouth and Gamaliel are Opposes and for TitaniumDragon, et al. Supports, please let me email you this Loganmac (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
Please reconcile this statement with your colleagues actions
| see above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I didn't pay any attention to the gamer gate case, although I I did try to edit the article once, but decided it was too toxic. I saw the proposed decision b/c I watch NB's talk page, and I noticed this comment of yours in the workshop. Do you not feel you and your colleagues should be held to a similar standard? Is there something in the deliberation process that leads to 11th hour results? (Two kinds of pork 07:52, 21 January 2015) It's not a question about the case per se, but rather about the overall process, which should be applicable across all cases. Is it fair to say appears you dont look kindly towards 11th hour "filings" (for the lack of a better word)?
So I take it by your silence you don't want to address your own hypocrisy?Two kinds of porkBacon 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Admins are supposed to explain their administrative actions when asked. Are Arbitrators not held to the same standard?Two kinds of porkBacon 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
Idea
Hello Beeblebrox, Ever since the infamous (for most people who know of it it is infamous) #GamerGate I payed more attention to feminism due to the fact 'the other side' consists of feminists (I payed attention before, but more local (Europe based)). Since then I've delved more deeper into it, and together with the news of today/yesterday (people trying to get an organisation to remove the invite to Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate)) including the near-libellous expressions of Kotaku's EiC Totillo etc, the 'porn charity' which got heavily attacked etc I really get the impression #GamerGate is just a culture war ('moderation' apparently also tries to be forced into comics, metal (the music), etc). Would it be a problem if I used my Sandbox page as an model to attempt to figure out if such a thing what I think it is is reported on by RSes as such, and whether it's possible to make such an article according to the Wiki-standards? Also, if it proves to be possible and can be done according to all standards, can it then be moved out to the regular Wiki (with possible tie-in links to the related portals)? Regards MicBenSte (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand your question correctly you are asking if it would be ok to draft a new article in your userspace sandbox. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that so long as you keep in mind that many policies , WP:BLP in particular, apply every bit as much in userspace as they do in articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
1234567890Number's self-given awards
Aside from the service awards (which you've deleted), they've also given themselves like 20 barnstars. Could/should anything be done about those? I feel that they lessen the value of earning one--I could have User:Origamian give me a dozen, but they'd be meaningless. Origamite 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- If they want to waste their time doing that, then let them, as long as it doesn't spill over elsewhere. The last barnstar seems to have come from January 2013, so I don't see the massive drama myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
- As long as it doesn't spill over, I guess you're right-but it's a bit more recent, they gave the other account one in November. Origamite 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a massive drama and if they object I'm willing to let it drop, but I have removed all the unearned awards and replaced them with a message about what Misplaced Pages is and how awards are supposed to work. My real concern here is that this appears to be a user more concerned with their stats and their shiny awards than in actually doing anything to help the encyclopedia. That is an attitude that should be discouraged. I would note that I became aware of this because of a request at WP:PERM for advanced permissions so it isn't just giving themselves unearned stuff, they are now asking others as well. Luckily I used real tools to check their edits, so the request was declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Austin & Ally Season 3
I was looking through Disney Channel stuff and noticed that the table for the season three episodes of Austin & Ally is messed up. I wouldn't know where to start looking. - Amaury (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Appears to be an error introduced by a recent edit. Looks like someone else already fixed it, which is good because I have no clue about table formatting. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Augustine Volcano
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure that's warranted just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Dunning–Kruger effect
How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Edit request
Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The reason you can't edit that page is because it is semi protected, which prevents edits from users who are not yet autoconfirmed. The reason, crazy as it may seem, is that there are apparently people creating accounts for no other purpose than to comment on that proposed decision. But wait, what's this, you seem to have admitted on your talk page that you are such a person an that you already have a another Misplaced Pages account. Editing project space with a single-purpose alternate account is not permitted so I guess the answer is going to have to be no. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)