User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:22, 21 October 2024 editBeeblebrox (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,450 edits not really my submission, but automated tools do what they doTag: Manual revert ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:37, 8 January 2025 edit undoSunnya343 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users17,171 edits →RfC notice: new sectionTag: New topic
(322 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:

	{{imbox\|text=<big><big>'''I used to be called Beeblebrox. I'm fine with it if anyone still calls me that, or Beebs, or whatever. '''</big></big> }}
	{{Archive basics		{{Archive basics
	\|archive = User talk:~~Just Step Sideways~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 50		\|counter = 52
	\|headerlevel = 2		\|headerlevel = 2
	\|maxarchivesize = 120K		\|maxarchivesize = 120K
Line 29:		Line 29:
	{{skip to top and bottom}}		{{skip to top and bottom}}

			== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==
	== Replaceable non-free use File:Fuad Shukr handout.png ==
	]
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of ]. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the ]. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have ''no free equivalent''; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

			I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	# Go to ] and add the text {{Tlx\|Di-replaceable non-free use disputed\|<your reason>}} '''below''' the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <code><your reason></code> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
	# On ], write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

			:It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. ] ] 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
			::It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met ] in ]. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. ] (]) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was ''not'' considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what ] would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. ] ] 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm disappointed that you didn't address my ] concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Username query ==
	If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable non-free use-notice --> ] ☞️ ] 09:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at ]. Do you think there's a ] or ] problem with respect to {{no ping\|Socceroos TV}}? I just want a second opinion before adding {{tlx\|uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- ] (]) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Could Greg page be blanked too?==
	I noticed an admin blanked a page of a similar user who did something similar with populating Misplaced Pages with family genealogy junk with junk sources. ]. Do you think Greghenderson2006's user page qualifies for this blanking too or maybe even deletion? ] (]) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I actually just undid the blanking of RAN's talk page because I don't see an actual legitimate reason for having blanked it. Users can have almost anything they want on their user page, blocked or not. If there was any indication that the content on Greg's userpage was part of ongoing disruption from him I would fully support it, but at the monent I don't see any reason to do so. ] ] 21:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- ] (]) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~September 2024~~ ==		== Request ==

			Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	One of your statements got crossposted to the user talk page of someone globally locked for unspecified sockpuppetry. I found them in the history of ] where there has been other suspicious activity recently, chiefly this standalone edit:

			:{{done}} It is at ]. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. ] ] 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm on my sock hunter arc RN... So, should I report this, and if so, where? ] (]) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ah, gotcha. ] ] 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. ] ] 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks! ] (]) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
	:I'm not at all sure than one edit from over a month ago is going to be found compelling at ], but if you are convinced it is a slam dunk, ] would be the correct venue for reporting it. ] ] 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks. The edit just seemed very strange to me. ''Especially'' because it was their only one. ] (]) 21:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			] from the past month (December 2024).
	== indef-blocked user pages ==

			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	WRT - if the user is indefinitely blocked for violations of Misplaced Pages policies, and they're not coming back after however many years, we're distributing their user page content because of ... some sort of a memorial? A little shrine to Misplaced Pages abuse? :) But more seriously, if we're not even telling other users that this happened, we're not doing this history right. There isn't even a {{tl\|blocked}} template anywhere on there. --] (]) 06:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

	:As I stated when reverting, I am not aware of any precedent or guidance that supports this action. If you can point me to where it says we do that I'll happily revert, but I'm pretty darn sure it is not standard procedure to blank user pages. If you'd like to change that feel free to propose it at the appropriate venue. ] ] 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
	::On the other hand I have revoked his talk page access, as it has been six years of him editing the talk page without filing an appeal. ] ] 19:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm just trying to follow some of the basic tenets of encyclopedia - it should describe things as they are. Leaving the userspace writings of an indefinitely blocked user ''verbatim'' creates the false impression in whoever sees that - that this user is still just another user, in good standing.
	:::This is something I would see either blanked or marked.
	:::Blanking is mentioned as remedy for inappropriate content in ] - obviously to what extent this content is ''inappropriate'' is moot, and I don't mind your revert if you think it isn't.
	:::Marking is why we have templates like {{tl\|uw-blockindef}} etc. I don't know offhand how to measure how often this is done, as the templates are not transcluded but substituted, but it is mentioned as something normal by ]. --] (]) 20:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
	::::I just noticed now that the marking exists at ], thanks. Still a bit odd to have all that at the user page itself, but hey. --] (]) 20:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::::BTW, ] says {{tq\|Excessive unrelated content includes ... information ... not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals}}. So if a user's been indef-blocked, 100KB of their user page content can hardly be considered ''closely'' related to Misplaced Pages's goals. --] (]) 20:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Blocking templates are normally placed on the talk page of the user who is blocked, to inform them why they are blocked and instruct them on how to appeal, and the user is perfectly free to remove such notices as well. None of this is any sort of new policy by any means.
	:::::Nobody brought up the user page as a problem in the discussion that led to the block, and you haven't really indicated which parts of it are a problem now, it seems more like you are concerned that there is not a notice letting everyone know he is blocked. We moved away from doing that in most cases, again, quite some time ago.
	:::::There is a gadget in your preferences that will strikeout the usernames of blocked users, and also a script, ] that shows user rights, account age, block status, and most recent edit. I find both quite helpful for quickly getting a base reading on who I'm talking to. ] ] 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
	::::::The entire blob is the problem, such as it were, because the user pages are meant to have a purpose, to help us collaborate (]), and I don't quite see how an effectively immutable snapshot of a user page of an indefinitely blocked user can achieve such a purpose. But, again, whatever, not a huge deal.
	::::::Anyway, why did we move away from notices about user status {{tq\|in most cases quite some time ago}}, where is that documented?
	::::::I actually notice when someone is blocked in the user popups, so I myself don't have a problem noticing this, it's the other readers and editors who might not have that. --] (]) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

	===UTRS request===
	I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way about blanking the user page. However, I am puzzled by your removing of talk page access. I can see no reason at all for doing that. The blocking policy says ''"editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring"''; none of that comes anywhere near to applying in this case. The reason you gave on the user talk page was ''"While we do allow blocked users some latitude on their own talk page, just coming by to delete things off your talk page without even attempting to get unblocked over such a long period of time just seems unproductive and frankly, unhealthy"''. "Just seems unproductive"? Maybe, but so what? Is it disrupting the project? Is it offensive? "Just seems ... unhealthy"? I find it difficult to see this as meaning any more than that you personally don't like it. Why should your opinions as to what is or is not healthy be imposed on an editor? Both your message on that user's talk page and your message above refer to the fact that he has not requested an unblock; well, now he has, at UTRS. Is there any good policy-compliant reason why talk page access should not be restored? ] (]) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

	:I left a detailed note on the UTRS request just now. ] ] 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
	::And just for clarity's sake, see also the above section titled "Could Greg page be blanked too?" regarding the blanking issue. This is why it concerned me as setting a precedent. ] ] 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

	== Revision deletion ==

	Hi, could you delete this revision, it contains a phone number. Thanks. ] (]) 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tpw}} {{done}} --] 🌹 (]) 15:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

	== Arbitration case opened ==

	You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 12:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

	== Comment about your ANI close ==

	I'm not sure if it should have been closed at all, it doesn't seem like there was much of a conclusion to it (and yes sure, you're an admin, but it didn't read like you were advising them as an admin, but instead summarizing it - but maybe that's just me), but if you're going to close it you should at least mention that the OP ] because of their hostile edit summaries? – ] (]) 04:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

	:Assuming we're talking about , that seems like a sperate issue from their .... unlikely accusations. ] ] 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	::Hm, fine. I just had both forgotten that you were an admin (before editing my message to acknowledge you are) and read it as if it was a summarization closure - from that point of view it seemed insufficient to just give advice that the discussion (that ended days before) didn't give and not mention the boomerang block. Sorry. – ] (]) 05:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

	== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==

	] from the past month (September 2024).

	]

	] '''Administrator changes'''		] '''Administrator changes'''
	:] ~~{{hlist~~\|~~class=inline~~		:] ]
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	\|]
			\|]
	\|]
			\|]
	}}		}}
	:] {{hlist\|class=inline		:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
	\|]
			\|]
	\|]
	\|]		\|]
	\|]		\|]
	\|]		\|]
			\|]
			\|]
	}}		}}

	] '''CheckUser changes'''		] '''CheckUser changes'''
	:] {{hlist\|class=inline		:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	\|]		\|]
	\|]		\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
	}}		}}
	:] ~~{{hlist~~\|~~class=inline~~		:] ]
	\|]		:] ]

	\|]
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]

			] '''Oversight changes'''
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
	}}		}}
			:] ]

			</div>
			</div>

	] '''Guideline and policy news'''		] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
	*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
			* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
	* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
			] '''Technical news'''
	* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.
			* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

	] '''Arbitration'''		] '''Arbitration'''
			* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping\|CaptainEek}}, {{noping\|Daniel}}, {{noping\|Elli}}, {{noping\|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping\|Liz}}, {{noping\|Primefac}}, {{noping\|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping\|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping\|Worm That Turned}}.
	* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
	* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
	* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.

	] '''Miscellaneous'''		] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

	----		----
Line 144:		Line 126:
	}}}}		}}}}
	<!--		<!--
	-->{{center\|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:00, 2 ~~October~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)</small>}}		-->{{center\|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
	<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=~~1248355798~~ -->		<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

	== Need a help need copies of deleted articles ==

	I need 2 pages ] and ].I found your name in the list of Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles hence requesting you. ] (]) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

	:{{done}} Now at ] and ]. ] ] 20:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
	:Thank you very much for your prompt response.] (]) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
	== File:Fuad Shukr handout.png listed for discussion ==
	] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 03:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Speedy deletion of "Forced Islamization of the Samaritans" ==

	Hello

	I wrote yesterday a new article "Forced Islamization of the Samaritans", i find out today that it qas deleted completely, i don't understand why. Can you explain it to me please? ] (]) 06:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tpw}} {{replyto\|Enhazaam}} Did you check ? There are some blue links in the entry: try them. --] 🌹 (]) 08:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	::Could you please explain the connection to the Israel-Arab conflict? ] (]) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tps}} {{reply\|Enhazaam}}, that kind of article would take an experienced editor a lot of work just to maintain ] and ] to reliable sources. You may have achieved that; I can't see what you wrote. But unfortunately it does not matter because topics associated with the Israel-Arab conflict have been placed under restrictions by the ] as a result of previous disruption. The link in the log takes you to the relevant page—] (or, 'Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict'). The restriction that applied to you, unfortunately, is that {{tq\| only ] may make edits related to the topic area}}. You are not, so you cannot. ]'']'' 11:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::Hello
	:::I fail to see how the Samaritans have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. They are ethno-religious people who have been persecuted for centuries. I simply wrote an article about the known fact, that they were persecuted and forced into Islam following the Levant being conquered by the Arabs.
	:::The Israeli-Arab conflict is not an issue related to this part of history. ] (]) 12:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::To be clear, neither I nor the person who nominated the article for deletion have accused you of acting with bad faith or malice. However, the of this contentious topic designation instructs users that it is to be ''broadly interpreted'', and in light of that I think it is a reasonable position that the forced Islamization of a group of Hebrew people dwelling within the borders of historical Israel is subject to the ] rules placed by the Arbitration Committee. ] ] 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Hello, thank you for your clarification on the subject. ] (]) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Hello
	:::::I'm sorry to open this again. It's just I put a lot of work into the article... Will I be able to republish the article at some point? When will that be possible? I just want to be sure, so that I don't work for nothing... Thank you ] in advance. ] (]) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Hypothetically you can re-create it as soon as your account is extended-confirmed. However I would also note that shortly before it was deleted it was tagged for ] issues as well. My suggestion would be that when the time comes, I could undelte it and ] it for you so that could be worked out first. ] ] 19:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::That would be very kind of you. Thank you! ] (]) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
	* For the benefit of any other confused British or Irish stumbling on this topic - it was about the ], not ]. ] (]) 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Unblock of ] ==
	==Soft deletion==
	Hello, JSS,

			Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following ], I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, ], which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. ] (] · ]) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	I see you are becoming active in closing AFDs. If a discussion just has a deletion nomination and one editor arguing for Deletion, our regular closers close these discussions as "Soft Deletions" per ]. This is due to the low participation in the discussion and this closure allows for restoration of the article at a later time should an editor wish to work on the article and improve it. This doesn't happen with a straight Deletion closure. Our biggest problem in AFDLand these days is low participation in most discussions and a Soft Deletion acknowledges that fact.

			:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	If you use XFDcloser, which I hope you do, you'll notice that you can check a box to make the deletion a Soft Delete. Please consider doing this in the future if you agree with the policy I linked to. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
			::It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. ] (] · ]) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'll give it a shot I suppose. ] ] 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. ] ] 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? ] ] 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! ] (] · ]) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be ''currently'' blocked? ] ] 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Good catch, there was a <code><nowiki>!= "unblocked"</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>== "unblocked"</nowiki></code> somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at ] now? ] (] · ]) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::That was it, working now. ] ] 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Now you see me, now you don't. ==
	:I've been using it when there seems to be a compelling reason to do so. It is a shame that so many AFDs seem to either attract either way too many comments or almost none at all. ] ] 23:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	::Oh, and realizing the utility of XFD closer is exactly what led to me getting active in this again. It's ''so'' easy now. ] ] 23:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to ] attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. ] ] 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Thank you ==

			:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	Closing ] was never going to be a walk in the park. The creating editor (autobiographer) deserved a consensus, and I believe that she now has one. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 07:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of ]. ] ] 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Potential topic ban violation ==
	:I was bored and thought "I'll close some AFDs" and of course that was the last one open for the day because nobody wanted to deal with it. ] ] 17:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
	==]==
	Hello, JSS,

			I was reading some military history articles and found my way to ] and saw that there was a ] for the user ] adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against ].<br>
	Unfortunately, this article isn't eligible for Soft Deletion as it either was PROD'd in 2019. Soft Deletions are like PRODs, articles are only eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) they haven't been PROD'd or to AFD before and b) there are no Keep votes. It's important to review the article page history. So, I think this AFD will have to be closed as a straight Delete. I hope my earlier message wasn't confusing.
			I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand.

			Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) ] (]) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)<br>
	Thank you for helping out at AFDLand, we can always use a few more discussion closers! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			:And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... ] (]) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Well dammit, I have to admit I did not check the talk page before choosing that option. That's entirely on me. ] ] 23:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. ] ] 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. ] (]) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Deletion review for ] ==
	== Twinkle Works ==
			An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> –] (]]) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RfC notice ==
	Thank you for helping me get Twinkle on my account. Apologies again for the ANI post. Thanks, ] (]) 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not\|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Anytime, it's a great tool that I've been using for a very long time. ] ] 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:37, 8 January 2025

tracks of previous discussions

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

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

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

XFD backlog
V	Dec	Total
CfD	23	23
TfD	0	0
MfD	0	0
FfD	9	9
RfD	41	41
AfD	0	0

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

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

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

−

Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?

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

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

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

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

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

Username query

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. Beeblebrox 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock of User:82.44.247.44

Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following the discussion in which we both took part, I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, User:Chaotic Enby/RecentUnblockHighlighter.js, which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? Beeblebrox 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot I suppose. Beeblebrox 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. Beeblebrox 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? Beeblebrox 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be currently blocked? Beeblebrox 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, there was a != "unblocked" instead of == "unblocked" somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at User talk:82.44.247.44 now? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That was it, working now. Beeblebrox 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Now you see me, now you don't.

I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to DoS attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. Beeblebrox 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of Leave the World Behind. Beeblebrox 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential topic ban violation

Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.

I was reading some military history articles and found my way to Battle of Baku and saw that there was a revert for the user 82.44.247.44 adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against MOS:DECISIVE.
I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand.

Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) Sigma440 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... Sigma440 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. Beeblebrox 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. Sigma440 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Guite people

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guite people. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)