This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 1 January 2025 (→Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:03, 1 January 2025 by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) (→Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 13 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 28 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 22 sockpuppet investigations
- 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 5 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 74 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 24 requested closures
- 28 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 7 Copyright problems
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
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 |
| 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
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)
- 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)
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. SounderBruce 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)
- 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)
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)
- Your new signature gave me a good chuckle :) Fun to see you back as Beeblebrox...now I can keep thinking about good 'ol Zaphod everytime I see your username. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oooh, I didn't know that you could also change your username back to your old one! TIL. Some gaming and social media platforms don't let you reuse previously used names. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I actually first tried to change in six years ago when Mark E. Smith died, but at that time users with as many edits as I have couldn't be renamed at all. By the time that changed I was on ArbCom and I didn't think ti would be kosher for a sitting arb to change their name so I sat on it until I wasn't on the committee anymore. I wasn't actually sure myself if I could change it back, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be possible. El 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Special:Diff/1265828071. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? signed, Rosguill 22:05, 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) |
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)