User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:47, 9 March 2011 editBeeblebrox (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,421 edits →Dissapointed: wrong, wrong, and wrong again← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:59, 9 March 2011 edit undoMbz1 (talk \| contribs)22,338 edits →Dissapointed: Thanks for the laugh (i mean your "Period" :-)Next edit →
Line 244:		Line 244:
	:::Hehe. No thanks. Those things crash a lot. Law of averages I guess, there's so damn many of them already. ] (]) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)		:::Hehe. No thanks. Those things crash a lot. Law of averages I guess, there's so damn many of them already. ] (]) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

	== ~~Dissapointed~~ ==		== Disappointed ==

	Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by . I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something . It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having ]" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged. Do you? regards.--] (]) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)		Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by . I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something . It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having ]" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged. Do you? regards.--] (]) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
	:There is no policy which states that articles at DYK are exempt from being tagged. Period. Therefore what you were doing was edit warring. Period. Administrators are not allowed to make up new policies on the spot and start applying them. Period. The section of the DYK guide you cite does not say it is prohibited to tag an article while it is on the main page, it says a disputed article will probably not become a DYK while it is under dispute. Not even remotely the same thing. ] (]) 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)		:There is no policy which states that articles at DYK are exempt from being tagged. Period. Therefore what you were doing was edit warring. Period. Administrators are not allowed to make up new policies on the spot and start applying them. Period. The section of the DYK guide you cite does not say it is prohibited to tag an article while it is on the main page, it says a disputed article will probably not become a DYK while it is under dispute. Not even remotely the same thing. ] (]) 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
			::Yes, I said there's no written policy about this, but there should be a common sense. One cannot rely on policies for any case, you know, Of course some people have common sense while others do not.
			::BTW you forgot to add the word "Period" after the last two sentences of yours .Care to add those now :-)--] (]) 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:59, 9 March 2011

Welcome to my talk page

Archives

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

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 would rather communicate by email, it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

Want to tell me what you think of me as an administrator? Go right ahead! Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Beeblebrox is live and any and all feedback is appreciated.

Pending changes

Hi.

I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. WP:PCPP does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the straw poll, which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best, Chzz ►

Funny you should mention that, as I have just been discussing re-opening discussion so that admins have some clear guidance on if we are supposed to be using it or not. There is no clear statement anywhere that I have been able to find that says to either keep using it or to stop. Currently when protecting a page an admin sees this message "The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. No page in the Misplaced Pages namespace should be protected under pending changes except those for testing." I think it is time to resolve this issue, but somebody needs to get the ball rolling and draft an RFC or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah; I did skim-read that discussion, but didn't take in that you'd written there. This certainly does need some clarification. Chzz ► 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 fire away. Already added to WP:CENT, and I have asked for a sitenotice . Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks good, yep; I will follow it with interest, and hope to join in. Thanks. Chzz ► 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and I'm helping the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made to Risker, and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, thanks for taking the time to drop a line here. Reading your post to Risker is actually kind of a relief, nobody seemed to sure what the "official" stance on this was, and apparently its pretty much the same as everyone else. That stance being summed as "Are we supposed to be doing this or not? Somebody tell me please." I don't know how the community will feel about the "jury" idea, but its worth running up the flagpole. We'd want to be sure there were non-admin users involved if that is done. If hope you don't mind, I'm going to add a pointer to your statement at Risker's page to the RFC, it may help us cut through some grey areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it's helpful! Anyway, yeah it's totally fine to add a pointer to the thread on Risker's talk page, though I'll make a similar statement on the RfC about what the Foundation has been doing and what we're looking to get out of the discussion so that her talk page doesn't become a lengthy debate zone. Steven Walling at work 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary's Spiritual College and Centre

Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied.

Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever!

It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You nominated it as patent nonsense and blatant vandalism. I can understand what it says and it is not vulgar or obviously deliberately disruptive. It might be lies, it might not be notable, but I don't see how it was either of the things you nominated it as. It is now nominated via WP:PROD which is much more flexible than the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Palooka?

Sorry Beeblebrox, but is this (obviously deliberate) misspelling intended as an insult to Wiktionary? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's fighting words! BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me... Drmies (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I do that a lot, usually spotting it right after pressing enter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pike Clinton Ross

I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks John Milito (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is, I've userfied the article for you at User:John Milito/Pike Clinton Ross. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. Rami R 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed some! :-)

Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! Ashanda (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I was actually going just off of diffs posted at ANI, I didn't think to check the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I figured a couple of diffs would be sufficient for people to get the gist, didn't want to bore everyone with a tl;dr post! You might want to look at 178.103.29.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think that's the last of them... for now anyway. Ashanda (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Collapse of Anti-Christian violence in India discussion

Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Airdrie Astronomical Association

Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page Airdrie Astronomical Association and redirect it to the same page, Airdrie Public Observatory? —innotata 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Sept. 11th

I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about WP:FORUM and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. Soxwon (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting FORUM is absolutely not a listed exception to the edit warring policy. regardless of the ArbCom sanctions, I could easily block the both of you right now for plain old edit warring if I was so inclined, but I'd rather try to persuade the both of you to just cut it out. Telling him to piss off in an edit summary was really unhelpful as well, as you can see it has only served to inflame the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page. My comments are entitled to be there. I do not have to put up with distasteful editors telling me to 'piss off' and calling my comments lunatic. I especially do not have to be told what to do by such editors. The editor Soxwon has every right to disagree with my point of view but does not have the right to remove my comments on a talk page. I request my comments be reinserted. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to take a side in this edit war, I have endeavored to maintain a position of neutrality around this page in order that I not become an involved administrator and therefore unable to use my administrative tools or impose sanctions. However I do not wish to simply ignore your concerns so I believe I will write up a report at WP:ANI in order to solicit outside opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated my comments. Not because I am edit warring but simply becuase this is a talk page page and my comments should not be censored by peopel wth an obvious political bias. Editors should not be allowed to censor talk pages. Vexorg (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I really, really wish you hadn't done that right after I informed you that it is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: I'm only technically involved, if even that. I reverted once and, to be fair, Vexorg's statements had no place there; he was basically just bitching about the article as a whole. Talk pages aren't meant for that unless he's also offering some sort of solution. But I think you can see what I mean. HalfShadow 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You were involved in the edit war so I have to inform you of the ANI discussion or I get yelled at. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Margins

I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD

AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. Feedback 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I made sure to note in my closing statement that my decision was not based on head counting. I've just re-red the debate and come to the same conclusion as last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, step 1

Done. Feedback 05:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(posting this here as it is somewhat off the topic of the DRV) You see, consensus is a subtle thing sometimes. It's hard to describe exactly how a determination is made. It starts with approaching the discussion as an uninvolved party who doesn't care if the article is deleted or not. I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focussing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not. What I almost never do is actually look at the article itself, because then I may form my own opinion and no longer be able to make an impartial decision. If I don't feel like there was a consensus reached I will close it as "no consensus" or relist it for another week. I'm not sure how to define it any more concretely than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I understand that part, but the article has no place on an encyclopedia, and anyone who views it will see it. Reading people saying "the article looks good now" or "there are references now" isn't the same as seeing that the article is 100% trivia and the references do not establish notability. A consensus is achieved from the strongest argument... Without being familiar with what they're talking about, how do you evaluate what the strongest argument is and what the consensus is? Feedback 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes if there is disagreement about certain issues such as the quality of a particular source then you have to go look for yourself. However an argument like "the article is 100% trivia" while possibly true, is something that can be fixed by editing. What is essential is that the closing admin not make a WP:SUPERVOTE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the "closing admin" figures out the consensus he thought was obvious was flawed and decides to NOT close it? Feedback 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't like seeing users trying to beat you up over the thing with Gobbles, which I thought was completely unfair and was mischaracterized. I'm glad it didn't torpedo your RFA. Congratulations, and welcome to the janitorial corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical theatre

Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR on the article talk page.

While this seems to be a clear WP:PREFER case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted.

I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the WP:OWN problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox. Since your archiving of the Musical theatre talk page today, Ronz has made voluminous contributions to that page under numerous headings, but they are vague, difficult to understand, and scattered all over the place. I have asked, on the talk page, for her/him to make a much more concise list of what he/she feels are the most important items to work on, so we can address or discuss them (hopefully in one place instead of scattered all over the talk page). Would you kindly take a look at the talk page there and try to help us find a way forward? Thanks for any assistance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How much longer should this go on before it's worth requesting protection again? --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also welcome your advice and/or intervention. Note that I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'd welcome your input in the ANI thread as a matter of some urgency. There has been what was, to me at least, an unexpected development. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful crap. I take a few hours off, get some sleep, and when I come back not one but two threads from my talk page have moved on to ANI without me. I left this comment , the issue seems to have calmed for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I've briefly responded to try to clarify what happened. Sorry for any confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User forging your name to RFPP

You should be made aware of ~~Pplease (talk · contribs)~~ Pplasse (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also uses 75.1.30.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and who, after an administrator fully-protected Jason Plummer (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you: edit 1, edit 2. Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another admin is already on the case, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the username above. I keep typoing his username; it's actually Pplasse. Sorry about that. --Closeapple (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The dilemma you pose to content editors

WP:EDITWAR is a policy. If you don't like it get the policy changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that. This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Misplaced Pages and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Misplaced Pages, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) First, remember WP:AGF - your tirade above is so non-AGF, it's not funny - if I was Beeblebrox, I wouldn't reply to such filth. Second, remember that WP:EW and WP:3RR are different - any admin can block you after fewer than 3 reverts. On certain high-profile articles for example, WP:1RR is pretty common. If an admin says that due to high traffic, a specific article is temporarily on 1RR - or if the article is already part a topic of curretn 1RR restriction, then guess what; its restricted. If any editor - longstanding or not - decides to play stupid and ignore that basic fact, well ... you already know what happens. That's the editor's fault, not the admins. If you disagree with the restrictions, you contact the admin (and possibly WP:ANI) BEFORE testing the waters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Filth. Did you say filth? Did you? Filth... filth... isn't that what they said about the Jews? You say you can block after just 1 RR! Staggering power! You say I don't assume good faith! With Beeblebrox I was most certainty assuming good faith and anticipating a sane and happy outcome. With your outburst, I am most certainly not assuming good faith. How could anyone possibly assume that after your "tirade" (but that's the term you used, isn't it?) You, yourself, are currently a key problematic administrator on Misplaced Pages, hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project. What space is there now for any content editor on Misplaced Pages? What has happening to Misplaced Pages? Is this real or just a nightmare that can be awakened from? Who are you to do this stuff BWilkins? Where is your track record of genuine contributions to Misplaced Pages? If you have none, how did it come about that we made you an "administrator"? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) First, I'm sensing an accusation of Nazi-like behaviour, and that won't end well for you. Second, I'm currently a "key problematic administrator"? "Hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project"? Really? Where? When? Launching an odd and unfounded statement like that really does little for your credibility. You're off your rocker, badly. You might wish to take a couple of hours off, have some tea, and rethink your approach with others on this collaborative project. Of course, my track record of actual contributions is available for all to see...you just need to look before acting as you are. You've really lost it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Godwins Law in effect. Look Epipelagic if you want to get any traction I would suggest that you comment on others edits as BW did to your comments and back away from the personal attacks and assumptions about other persons' motivations. What is the problem? What is your proposed solution?--Adam in MO Talk 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Step One: Stop calling each other names, if you're looking to actually resolve anything. Of course, if you're just enjoying the fight, then carry on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC) The above made its way to ANI here, Beeblebrox, in case you're interested. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR is a policy. If you don't like it get the policy changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that.

This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Misplaced Pages and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Misplaced Pages, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First, remember WP:AGF - your tirade above is so non-AGF, it's not funny - if I was Beeblebrox, I wouldn't reply to such filth. Second, remember that WP:EW and WP:3RR are different - any admin can block you after fewer than 3 reverts. On certain high-profile articles for example, WP:1RR is pretty common. If an admin says that due to high traffic, a specific article is temporarily on 1RR - or if the article is already part a topic of curretn 1RR restriction, then guess what; its restricted. If any editor - longstanding or not - decides to play stupid and ignore that basic fact, well ... you already know what happens. That's the editor's fault, not the admins. If you disagree with the restrictions, you contact the admin (and possibly WP:ANI) BEFORE testing the waters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Filth. Did you say filth? Did you? Filth... filth... isn't that what they said about the Jews? You say you can block after just 1 RR! Staggering power! You say I don't assume good faith! With Beeblebrox I was most certainty assuming good faith and anticipating a sane and happy outcome. With your outburst, I am most certainly not assuming good faith. How could anyone possibly assume that after your "tirade" (but that's the term you used, isn't it?) You, yourself, are currently a key problematic administrator on Misplaced Pages, hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project. What space is there now for any content editor on Misplaced Pages? What has happening to Misplaced Pages? Is this real or just a nightmare that can be awakened from? Who are you to do this stuff BWilkins? Where is your track record of genuine contributions to Misplaced Pages? If you have none, how did it come about that we made you an "administrator"? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm sensing an accusation of Nazi-like behaviour, and that won't end well for you. Second, I'm currently a "key problematic administrator"? "Hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project"? Really? Where? When? Launching an odd and unfounded statement like that really does little for your credibility. You're off your rocker, badly. You might wish to take a couple of hours off, have some tea, and rethink your approach with others on this collaborative project. Of course, my track record of actual contributions is available for all to see...you just need to look before acting as you are. You've really lost it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Godwins Law in effect. Look Epipelagic if you want to get any traction I would suggest that you comment on others edits as BW did to your comments and back away from the personal attacks and assumptions about other persons' motivations. What is the problem? What is your proposed solution?--Adam in MO Talk 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Step One: Stop calling each other names, if you're looking to actually resolve anything. Of course, if you're just enjoying the fight, then carry on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The above made its way to ANI here, Beeblebrox, in case you're interested. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

user decided to drag this to WP:ANI
Beeblebrox: I realize the article, at first blush, appears to be the same as the offensive "White Argentine" article deleted a month ago. It is not, however, as it makes no reference to Argentines of European descent being "white," mentions that term only to dismiss it as atypical of Argentine speech, while speaking only of the history of Argentine people who happen to be of European descent (most of whom are the result of intermarriage between immigrants of many different nationalities in Europe). The title is in no way a construct of anything, as the existence of Argetine people of European descent is self-evident, and is is no way different fro or disparaging toward articles about Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, or any one else. The article itself meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. I take my work here, and your decision and reasons for your earlier deletion, seriously, and would not simply "cut and paste" something that had been offensive to others to te point of it's being deleted. Plase write me back if you have any doubts or suggestions at all. Sincerely, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I can see that a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article and changed "white" to "of European descent." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please don't assume that everything in the former article was deserving of deletion. A lot of good research was to be found in the former article, almost all of it from editors other than me, and it included a lot of valuable data and references that would otherwise be tedious to assemble. What was left after I cut out the suppositions, and what I added later, are only descriptions of what happened in the history of Argentine people of European descent, with sources, and contains no unfounded assertions or thoughtless conclusions. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Beeblebrox: I believe you are jumping to conclusins in this case. You should have read the article, rather than assuem that, because it looks similar, it kept all the same assertions that made the previous one a synthesis and therfore unfit. It does not, and the fact that some Argentines descend from what after all was six million European immigrants is a patent fact. I don't know you from Adam, and detest these conflicts, but I object to unfairness and to being flatly accused of rewriting bunk even more, and feel the article should be reinstated, or at least not be arbitrarily deleted. I had to report this to the Incidents noticeboard. The thing is, I rather agreed that "white" was a social construct. It's just that the history and data themselves were valid, and what I saw was the baby was being thrown out with the bath water. I'd be the first to revert anyone who tried to push the "white" concept regarding this group of people. Peace, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

user decided to drag this to WP:ANI

Beeblebrox:

I realize the article, at first blush, appears to be the same as the offensive "White Argentine" article deleted a month ago. It is not, however, as it makes no reference to Argentines of European descent being "white," mentions that term only to dismiss it as atypical of Argentine speech, while speaking only of the history of Argentine people who happen to be of European descent (most of whom are the result of intermarriage between immigrants of many different nationalities in Europe).

The title is in no way a construct of anything, as the existence of Argetine people of European descent is self-evident, and is is no way different fro or disparaging toward articles about Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, or any one else. The article itself meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. I take my work here, and your decision and reasons for your earlier deletion, seriously, and would not simply "cut and paste" something that had been offensive to others to te point of it's being deleted.

Plase write me back if you have any doubts or suggestions at all.

Sincerely, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article and changed "white" to "of European descent." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume that everything in the former article was deserving of deletion. A lot of good research was to be found in the former article, almost all of it from editors other than me, and it included a lot of valuable data and references that would otherwise be tedious to assemble. What was left after I cut out the suppositions, and what I added later, are only descriptions of what happened in the history of Argentine people of European descent, with sources, and contains no unfounded assertions or thoughtless conclusions.
Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: I believe you are jumping to conclusins in this case. You should have read the article, rather than assuem that, because it looks similar, it kept all the same assertions that made the previous one a synthesis and therfore unfit. It does not, and the fact that some Argentines descend from what after all was six million European immigrants is a patent fact. I don't know you from Adam, and detest these conflicts, but I object to unfairness and to being flatly accused of rewriting bunk even more, and feel the article should be reinstated, or at least not be arbitrarily deleted. I had to report this to the Incidents noticeboard.

The thing is, I rather agreed that "white" was a social construct. It's just that the history and data themselves were valid, and what I saw was the baby was being thrown out with the bath water. I'd be the first to revert anyone who tried to push the "white" concept regarding this group of people.

Peace, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PC

Don't give up
Don't mistake tl;dr for DRAMA
"we can always work out any lingering details after the big decision is made" is one hell of an assumption!
Quote, "establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing." m:Polls are evil
There are always ways forwards.
Please look at the very very rough, not-even-pre-alpha-draft, here. Chzz ► 05:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't given up, but the RFC is a mess. While I absolutely don't want to turn this into a straight up poll I think a more structured format is going to be needed if we are ever going to move this forward. There are 37 sections already, many of which duplicate each other. I get the impression new participants are adding their comments without reading what has already been said, and the "blame game" has become a massive distraction from the primary issues. If people are ok with the re-start idea I think it could be up and running pretty quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NO SOUP FOR YOU!~

Heh. Anyways, you (will) have gotten mail. --Addi hockey 10 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got your email. I don't see any compelling reason to have this conversation in private so I am responding here. The problem with single purpose admins is that they have the entire admin toolset and all we have is their word that they won't use the rest of it. Since you promised three months ago to not nominate yourself at RFA for a year I doubt your word would be enough of a guarantee for most users comfort. However, the ban is not binding and there is nothing except your promise not to stopping you from nominating yourself again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Puzzles in films

Pretty disappointing. If I were to nominate every page that I was personally uninterested in, I wouldn't have enough time in the day. Why not do what I suggested? What happened to the original goal of collecting the world's information? Instead, the information is lost forever. Deletionists win rather than giving time for articles to grow. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my closing statement? I thought I was pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(I also don't agree that it was ever WPs mission to collect every conceivable piece of information. Information and knowledge are not synonymous. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I read your closing statement. Wouldn't it have been better to follow my suggestion than to delete the article and have somebody start over? (trick question: answer is Yes) Deletionists drive people like me away from Misplaced Pages. I don't have 10 hours a day to edit. Maybe 10 hours a year. But, when people delete before giving an article a chance (and note I didn't create the article, I just made a few minor edits and defended it), that absolutely does not help Misplaced Pages grow. BTW, Back in 2000, when I first started editing Misplaced Pages, a stated goal was something along the lines of "collecting the world's information". Of course, that goal has long since vanished.

Sometimes I feel that I should go find a few hundred pages that I think are below the quality of what belongs and nominate them for deletion. It wouldn't be hard. I'd say 50% of the pages I find on a random walk are such candidates. Of course, people would claim I was just trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages.

Here's a quick random walk experiment -- ten clicks on Random article.

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - completely original research
List of spatial analysis software - the table is original research (there are tons like this on Misplaced Pages, which shows OR is ok if it's a topic people like)
Doepfer MS-404 - not notable, minor piece of hardware from a minor manufacturer, nothing particularly special about it, no longer made
Murad Ismail - a Pakistani polo player, doesn't seem notable in any way
Once You've Tasted Love - single song by a band I've never heard of - does every song by every band get a page?
Bomb damage assessment - probably ok even though I'd never heard of it, very poor references, why isn't this part of a larger article on warfare?
Lagging (epidemiology) - no idea why this isn't a section in the Epidemiology article
Kakuvälja - village in Estonia - first that clearly belongs but empty
Buddireddipatti - village in India, a little less empty
Chris Todd - Welsh football (soccer) player - supposedly, every professional sportsperson, even those playing for obscure teams, belongs. And, btw, the other Chris Todd's page is a total mess.

So, of those ten, I'd nuke more than half, if I was a deletionist. Try it yourself and see what you get. RoyLeban (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) want the article userfied so you can re-work it all you need do is ask, as I stated in the closing statement you claim to have read. Nothing is ever lost "forever" on Misplaced Pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Afd/Old

I wrote a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Old to your question.

By the way, if I don't reply soon, ping me on my talk page or send me email. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nice

I think you did a very nice thing in your recent edits. Undoubtedly you will catch a measure of flack from some with a inclination for conflict. I think the reasoned view will fully support your properly bold actions. I am feeling optimistic as a result and wanted to share a bit of it with you. Bravo My76 Strat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm hopeful the new format will allow us to move forward and get a clearer picture of consensus. We can only hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, full support, your re-format may well help break the discussion deadlock, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PC RFC

Hi, I changed the wording of the "PC drives away new users" section very slightly. If you mind, please revert and I'll start a separate section, but since it didn't have any votes yet and it's essentially the same, I didn't think that was worth it. - Kingpin (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do think that there are users who support the more "extremist" version, but they can always add their own new view if they wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bebblebrox

I've been busy for a little bit and found this message on my talk page. I wasn't sure who to contact about it. Shinerunner (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish editionExcuse this request. I used to collaborate in the Spanish edition, that´s my mother tongue. Unfortunately, a few group of Spanish administrators are expelling many contributors as well as deleting thousands of relevant articles which are well redacted too. I would like to "appeal to a higher authority". I tried to talk to other Spanish administrators but they don´t dare to do anything. I´m not the only one complaining about this. I think that if no one intervenes, the prestige of wikipedia is going to decline, at least in the Spanish edition which forms part of the global project. Who could I talk to? Thank you, regards.

--Bromley80 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Each Misplaced Pages project makes it's own rules, there's not really anything we can do about how they do things at the Spanish WP. The only "higher authority" is the Wikimedia Foundation, and there would have to be a very serious problem before they would interfere. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll leave a note on the user's page.Shinerunner (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Syndrome

It's that syndrome again, isn't it - what's it called? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This? Chzz ► 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, ta. Always nice to learn something new. Chzz ► 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks - quite sad really -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And once again, daja vu

My apologies for this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the arguments made are not nearly as ridiculous as the ones made here and here. Somewhere in all the puffery there do actually appear to be couple of decent refs, and nobody was making up new rules in the middle of the debate. Thanks for the sympathy though. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Buy yourself a bushplane, sell tickets and Air Beeblebrox will soon be a featured article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. No thanks. Those things crash a lot. Law of averages I guess, there's so damn many of them already. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed

Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by by your comment here. I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something Please see here. It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged.HJ Mitchell understands it Do you? regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy which states that articles at DYK are exempt from being tagged. Period. Therefore what you were doing was edit warring. Period. Administrators are not allowed to make up new policies on the spot and start applying them. Period. The section of the DYK guide you cite does not say it is prohibited to tag an article while it is on the main page, it says a disputed article will probably not become a DYK while it is under dispute. Not even remotely the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I said there's no written policy about this, but there should be a common sense. One cannot rely on policies for any case, you know, Of course some people have common sense while others do not.

BTW you forgot to add the word "Period" after the last two sentences of yours .Care to add those now :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)