| Revision as of 23:59, 9 March 2014 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,451 edits →Arbitration request motion passed: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 10 March 2014 edit undoJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →Trout: ANI notificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| :So, let me make sure I've got this right: the thing that bothers you the most is not that a user made up an inane theory that the entire article was constructed to support a single-sentence statement that was removed from the lead days ago by the very person who was supposedly the matermind of this dastadly plot, it is that I chose to point out the absurdity of that premise using a small drawing of a fish? I mean really, the debate about references is one thing, implying that the entire article was created to prove some point when that is provably false is something else. But you are right about walking away, I removed the page from my watchlist right after making that comment. ] (]) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | :So, let me make sure I've got this right: the thing that bothers you the most is not that a user made up an inane theory that the entire article was constructed to support a single-sentence statement that was removed from the lead days ago by the very person who was supposedly the matermind of this dastadly plot, it is that I chose to point out the absurdity of that premise using a small drawing of a fish? I mean really, the debate about references is one thing, implying that the entire article was created to prove some point when that is provably false is something else. But you are right about walking away, I removed the page from my watchlist right after making that comment. ] (]) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Me, too. The important thing is that you left the article better than you found it. Thanks for your hard work. ] (]) 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ::Me, too. The important thing is that you left the article better than you found it. Thanks for your hard work. ] (]) 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Characterizing your "tinfoil hat" and "utter lunacy" comments (and now, "load of nonsense", etc.) as referring not to me as an individual, but only to my argument, is specious; you have engaged in a personal attack. As you show no willingness to discuss the matter civilly I have referred this to the ] noticeboard. See ]. ~ ] (]) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == To Arbitration Committee == | == To Arbitration Committee == | ||
Revision as of 00:17, 10 March 2014
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.
Password Reset Request
Hi, Beeblebrox! I haven't been very active lately, but I just got an e-mail with the following contents, which I ignored, but I figured someone should know:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 76.18.17.166) requested a reset of your password for Misplaced Pages (<http://en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:
Username: Amaury Temporary password: ******
This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password. Amaury (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I presume that isn't your IP address Amaury? That IP has never made any contributions, so if it isn't your IP, that's a little odd (it suggests that a regular user is behind it, rather than some purely random joker) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've gotten such messages several times. All it really means is that someone tried their luck and discovered that our password recovery system is not so poorly designed that it will just give out a password to any random person. It will only send a message to an email address that is already connected to a account, so there's no real need to worry. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was more curious than worried. I have strong passwords. Amaury (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've gotten such messages several times. All it really means is that someone tried their luck and discovered that our password recovery system is not so poorly designed that it will just give out a password to any random person. It will only send a message to an email address that is already connected to a account, so there's no real need to worry. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Double account
By mistake, I created 2 accounts, one with only my IP number 80.136.224.194. Can you delete that IP number from my question in wikipedia:Teahouse? Replacing it with my registered name would be ok, too. Thank you! Geometricjewels (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- You don't actually have two accounts. You have the account you just registered, and you have an IP address you edited from a few times. We will suppress your IP if you are a registered user and you do not realize you are logged out and edit as an IP. However, that does not appear to be the case here. Your account was not registered until after you made those IP edits, and to fully remove all trace of the IP I would have to delete dozens of intervening revisions as well. What you can do is edit that section, replacing the IP address with your username, but that's about as far as policy can stretch to accommodate this request. For future reference, the best way to handle such situations is by emailing the oversight team as detailed at WP:RFO. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
New account persistently re-creating page on made-up TV show
Yuhoney20cute keeps recreating GG Next Top Model (either under that title or Gellang's Next Top Model). Since this isn't obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV, I thought I would ask you if you would, depending on which you judge to be the best decision, either block this account or salt the pages (or both). Also, her userpage is pretty much identical to the now-deleted article, so maybe that should be deleted as well. Jinkinson talk to me 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Trout
Beeblebrox, I'm a bit surprised at an editor with your experience taking someone's comments so personally. I think J. Johnson's comments, right or wrong, were made in good faith. Unless you really want to waste your time, you'd do better to delete or cross out your trout comment and walk away as you originally intended to do. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, let me make sure I've got this right: the thing that bothers you the most is not that a user made up an inane theory that the entire article was constructed to support a single-sentence statement that was removed from the lead days ago by the very person who was supposedly the matermind of this dastadly plot, it is that I chose to point out the absurdity of that premise using a small drawing of a fish? I mean really, the debate about references is one thing, implying that the entire article was created to prove some point when that is provably false is something else. But you are right about walking away, I removed the page from my watchlist right after making that comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Me, too. The important thing is that you left the article better than you found it. Thanks for your hard work. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Characterizing your "tinfoil hat" and "utter lunacy" comments (and now, "load of nonsense", etc.) as referring not to me as an individual, but only to my argument, is specious; you have engaged in a personal attack. As you show no willingness to discuss the matter civilly I have referred this to the WP:ANI noticeboard. See WP:ANI#User:Beeblebrox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
To Arbitration Committee
Sir;
What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?
What I do wrong to that IP ?
Is that IP correct ?
Best regards. --B20180 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of things:
- As noted at the top of this page, if you have business with the committee you should contact the full committee at WP:RFAR as opposed to just posting on individual user talk pages.
- The committee only gets involved in issues the community has already tried to resolve and failed.
- Your questions are hopelessly vague anyway so no matter where you post them I doubt you will get satisfactory answers.
- In short, I don't have an answer to any of your questions and I doubt it is a matter for the committee. Perhaps try some lesser form of dispute resolution and try to be a lot more specific about exactly what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: WP:OFFER
I notice you cited the opinion essay WP:OFFER as the rationale for an unblock at BASC. I'm curious as to why this essay has not yet been elevated to official guideline or policy and the process to be followed to give it official status. It seems as though it is widely accepted as site organizational law, even though it currently is not. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I am sure you are aware, the committee can not and does not make or modify policy. We can cite it as the advice we followed to help us arrive at a decision, but we cannot dictate that anyone else follow it. You are of course free to propose such a change yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration request motion passed
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
- By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)