User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:34, 5 November 2010 editPostdlf (talk \| contribs)Administrators91,183 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists ← 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
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
	<big>'''Welcome to my talk page'''

			{{Archive basics
			\|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 52
			\|headerlevel = 2
			\|maxarchivesize = 120K
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->

			{{archives
			\| collapsible = yes
			\| collapsed = yes
			\|search=yes
			\|image = ]
			\|title = tracks of previous discussions
			}}
			{{clear}}
			{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}


			]
	<span></small>
	{{~~archives~~}}		{{Admin tasks}}

	]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.
			<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>

			{{clear}}
	]''' 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.

			−
			{{skip to top and bottom}}

			== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==
	]'''If you want to know why I deleted or protected a page, or why I blocked a user''' please check first before posting a message here.

			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)
	] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
	</big>
	</div>
	]

			: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)
	== Generation X ==
			::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 ==
	Hi, Beeblebrox.

			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)
	Thanks for protecting the Generation X page. The arguing back and forth was getting ridiculous. I left a message on the talk page. Do you mind either responding there or on my talk page?

			:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Also, can you please fix the title of the reference I added? Number 14: by Timothy Smith. The title is ''The Seven Cries of Today's Teens: Hear Their Hearts, Make the Connection. Thomas Nelson''. The first word is missing the "T." It accidentally got deleted when I was adding another source. I appreciate it. Have a good weekend. ] (]) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (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)

			== Request ==
	{{Talkback\|Talk:Generation X\|Thoroughly explained reasoning behind wording of the introduction\|ts=06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)}}
	{{Talkback\|CreativeSoul7981\|Thoroughly explained reasoning behind wording of the introduction\|ts=06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)}}

			Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	==SHAYCARL REVIEW==
	I apologise in advance if i am sending you a message wrongly but i cant find a function to send you a mail etc. I was just asking could you review a deleted article called shaycarl?. Youtube is a huge organisation with millions of followers and this man is a very successful person there, with over 1.2 million subscribers spread through his 4 channels i think he is well known enough to have his page back.
	I am not forcing you to review it I am merely suggesting it.
	regards,
	sam. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I'm not sure why you are asking me in particular, but ] has been deleted ''nine times'', so anyone wanting to recreate it should probably construct a ] that has multiple ] cited, the lack of which being the main reason the article was deleted so many times. ] (]) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

			:{{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)
	== PG2 ==
			::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 ==
	Hi. Thanks for un-talk-blocking PG2. To avoid excess traffic at the noticebaord I'll ask here rather than there: can you say if PG2 was in fact tp blocked? His logs say:

			] from the past month (December 2024).
	<pre>
	* 2010-10-18T18:57:11 Beeblebrox (talk \| contribs) changed block settings for Polargeo 2 (talk \| contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (allowing talk page access to request unblock)
	* 2010-10-15T00:39:43 Hersfold (talk \| contribs) blocked Polargeo 2 (talk \| contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{checkuserblock}} - Abusing multiple accounts / block evasion - User:Polargeo)
	</pre>

			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	You can read the logs better than me. From that it looks to me like H just blocked the account, and PG2 had talk page access? (it is probably the range block casuing his inability to edit there, I'm guessing).
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

			] '''Administrator changes'''
	Thanks, ] (]) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:Although it is somehow not noted in the log, when I opened up the block options "allow user to edit their own talk page" was not checked. It is now. ] (]) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	::I can confirm that. A bug, maybe. –]] 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
			\|]
	:: Thanks ] (]) 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	== lil help? ==
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]

			</div>
	{{tl\|helpme}}
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	I don't know where I went wrong, but I made a mess trying to cite the same source multiple times at ]. ] (]) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:{{done}} Just missed the " / " at the end of the reference <nowiki><ref name="Close to Home"/></nowiki> <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Ctjf83, you beat me to it! ''']''' ''']''' ] 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::How silly of me. Thanks for the fix. ] (]) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

			] '''Oversight changes'''
	==DYK for Chionoecetes bairdi==
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	{{tmbox
			\|]
	\|style = notice
			\|]
	\|small =
			\|]
	\|image = ]
			\|]
	\|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
			\|]
	}} <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
			}}
			:] ]

			</div>
	== re-talkback ==
			</div>

	{{talkback\|Talk:Shane Dawson}} ] (]) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Communist Terrorism ==

	Sorry I think you made the wrong call there. We have two IPs which were created simply to edit war on a single edit which had been disputed. The fact that one has gone way past 3rr kinda proves the point. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Were their edits ]? That wasn't indicated in your protection request and does not appear to be the case. I can't be taking sides in an edit war, and you passed 3RR yourself. If you prefer I could remove the protection and hand out some blocks... ] (]) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	::I don't expect you to take sides and I'm relaxed about the page being frozen as it is generally in a mess. My point was that the New Jersey IP was created (in a few forms) just to insert the disputed text. That to me is vandalism and I broke my normal self imposed 2RR restriction to revert three times (so I didn't break 3RR, but yes I do know its not an entitlement). This (and a few other articles) are suffering from a small group of editors determined to state that genocide and terrorism are an essential consequence of communism. There have already been long term blocks, ANI reports and RfCs around this issue. The tactic of using single purpose IPs to avoid engagement on the talk page just makes it very difficult to make any sensible progress. Raising SPI reports, writing 3RR reports is tiresome to the point where editors trying to work with the evidence just give up. Personally I think any article which gets controversial should be semi-protected or put under the new review process. So I'm not protesting, I am flagging this as an example of a wider issue. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::If this is a bigger problem then it needs to be dealt with in a different manner than just a one-line request at RFPP. If the scope is as wide as you say at the very least an ] is called for to determine if some sort of sanctions need to be applied to these articles. ] (]) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::Fair enough, it just seemed a straight forward way of getting rid of one of the hassles.--] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

	==Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010==
	You think you could possibly create an article on this piece of legislation when you have time? It would be greatly appreciated. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I'm uncertain why you are asking me in particular about this as I have not really written a legislation article in the past. Have we met before? You can request an article at ]. As a confirmed user you could also write it up yourself. It doesn't have to be perfect, just make sure you cite some ] and it should be fine. A quick googling of this act revealed several possible sources. ] (]) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
	Yeah I wasn't sure how to go about doing it, and was afraid that I would mess up. But I'll try to create an article. Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== ] ==

	{{tb\|Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship.2FCliffmore\|ts=05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)}} ]]] 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

	== "Topic Banning for Dummies"? ==

	Are the dummies to be topic banned those who cannot spell properly in their edit summaries? I thort I wuld ask... ] (])
	:Yeah, I seem to be having a problem with my keyboard, I keep getting a "p" when I press "o," and there is no way to edit a summary once you press enter. I guess I could make sure I preview my edit summaries as well as the actual edits. If I was really vain (and wanted to get in a lot of hot water) I suppose I could suppress it. ] (]) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Hello. =) ==

	So, am I doing good so far? =) - ] (]) 23:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
	:...So far, the majority of your edits appear to have been turning your "status" on and off, but what actual edits you do have do not appear to be edit warring, so that's a good sign. ] (]) 02:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	== User CreativeSoul7981 ==

	This is not a criticism, just an inquiry. I have no interest in the ] article or the dispute involving CreativeSoul7981, nor do I wish to defend CreativeSoul7981 or any other editor. I am only concerned about Misplaced Pages in general. Here's my inquiry: Do you think maybe you overstepped your bounds as an admin in blocking CreativeSoul7981? Perhaps I missed something and I would welcome being corrected. But in a quick look at the matter, CreativeSoul7981 did not violate 3RR (and I understand edit warring can occur without a 3RR vio). If there is a consensus in the dispute, it did not appear to me to be overwhelming. And finally, it seems to me that you expressed an opinion in the dispute; I'm not sure if your taking admin action by blocking CreativeSoul7981 involved some conflict of interest, but it did cross my mind. I also wonder if a warning before a block would have been appropriate. Again, maybe I've missed some things because I'm not involved with the article. Thanks. ] (]) 18:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I admit I did hesitate because I had expressed a bit of an opinion on the talk page, but I think the block was justified. As you can see the talk page is very ], but if you look closely you will see that in the past week I had repeatedly noted that everyone on the page could consider themselves warned for edit warring. CS is clinging to an "old" consensus and refusing to acknowledge that the ]. On top of that he keeps making vague threats at the other users by telling them it is their "last warning," as if he has permission to edit war and they cannot revert anything he edits. It seems like a case where ego has overridden common sense. As I mentioned when I blocked him, he repeatedly acknowledged in his edit summaries that consensus was currently against his position, and yet he re-inserted the material anyway. He did this with his eyes wide open and with more than sufficient warning. ] (]) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. Thanks. Have a good day! ] (]) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

	{{Talkback\|CreativeSoul7981\|JamesBWatson - Edit Warring\|ts=04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)}}
	==Orphaned non-free image File:Dustbowie.jpeg==

	<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

	'''PLEASE NOTE:'''

	* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
	* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
	* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
	* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots\|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.
	*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ].


	Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Revision Deletion request ==

	Would you revision delete the edits by {{user\|173.14.47.193}} at ] beginning from ? The IP's first edit to the article is constructive (the correction of one of the school colors from white to gold), though the subsequent edits contain BLP violating content. Thank you, ] (]) 06:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
	:{{done}} ] (]) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Thank you! ] (]) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

	==Mbz1==
	Would you remind responding to ? I understand that it might be completely annoying but sometimes the principle makes things touchy.] (]) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
	:<small>(replied at ] ] (]) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC))</small>

	==RevDel==
	*Would a RevDel be appropriate for this edit; ? ] (]) 01:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Yes it would, {{done}}. ] (]) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Ban ==

	Yes - I do agree. Thanks :) --<b><font color=red>]</font><font color=blue>]</font><font color=gold>]</font><font color=purple><sup>]</sup></b></font> 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:<small>(replied at ]. ] (]) 02:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
	==Orphaned non-free image File:Clarkbarlogo.gif==

	<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

	'''PLEASE NOTE:'''

	* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
	* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
	* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
	* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots\|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.
	*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ].


	Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	==WMC==
	{{collapse top}}
	William M. Connolley also has an authorized alternate account ]. I don't know how these things are handled. Should it also be blocked? --] 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Blocks are on the user, under any identity. I'm sure Mr. Connolley is aware of this a former admin, but just in case he decides to pretend he isn't I blocked WMC as well. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. ] (]) 19:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Log needs updating -] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::{{done}} The whole Arb enforcement thing is kind of a new field for me, but so many users have been clamoring for more admins to come over and issue blocks to these CC banned users... Anyway thanks for reminding me. ] (]) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::Block early and block often needs to be the modus operandi for enforcing the CC decision. Thanks for stepping into the AE snake pit. -] (]) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

	WMC asked me to bring this to your attention: He prefers to be referred to as either WMC or Dr. Connolley. You called him Mr. Connolley, and he took offense to that. Would you please consider addressing him by his preferred means in the future? I know you're not ''technically'' required to do so, but it would go a long way in having a favorable effect on him. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Also, he has appealed his block to AE, and requested that I notify you as required for sanctions appeals. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:I saw his pointer to the essay he wrote about how to properly address him. All I can say is that he seems to thrive on pointless drama. ] (]) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::His preferred method is idiosyncratic, I know. However, since he has made his preference clear, there is really no reason not to follow it. It is a fairly reasonable standard, and it would be pointlessly inflaming to run contrary to that, now that you are aware of the issue. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I would deliberately ignore this concern, just that it seemed a bit frivolous. ] (]) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::Ah, alright. Yes, it is somewhat unusual, but essentially harmless. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::He's English? That's my rationale, anyway.
	:::::However, though there has been some discussion with some opinions raised on what the topic ban means, I don't see where arbcomm actually ''decreed'' anything to the extent that what WMC did was wrong. William is not one to break rules, formally construed. Since you are the blocking admin, I would appreciate if you would seek to clarify your actions with arbcomm to see whether or not they agree with you in order to guide future action in this case in a way that can be ''accepted'' as appropriate (if not liked) by all.
	:::::Also, EngineerFromVega burst onto the scene with some good 'ol fashioned wikilawyering know-how. That makes me concerned about motives / former accounts. This is tangential to my main two points, however. ] (]) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I am not really interested in rehashing this here on my talk page, but I will say that ] makes it clear that a topic ban is what I am claiming it is, a ban from the topic, to be construed as broadly as possible, and that it's funny how blocking WMC is such a big deal while Marknutley's block was at least as far removed from any actual editing of a CC related page. He doesn't seem to have as large of a fan club as WMC. ] (]) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: OK - thanks for the clarification. FYI I am not much a fan of Mark's ban either, and left him a note on his talk page to that effect. ''Maybe'' he and WMC understood that what they were doing is wrong, but I think that a clarification would have been enough. Ah, well, but that's arbcomm's thing to do. I only pay sporadic attention to these things, which is why I missed Mark's. I hope you don't mind if I ignore the snarkiness I interpret in your "fan club" comment -- either I'm sure you've heard more than enough in the past day to deserve a little leeway in that direction, or I'm tired enough of this to interpret nonexistent snarkiness. Either way, thanks for your response. ] (]) 07:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Frankly it is one of the (many) reasons admins have been hesitant to wade into this so far. There are a few obvious lightning rods involved. Yesterday there was a good talk on ] about how to proceed, and there was a general agreement that talk time was over. So, of course the very next day as soon as I checked to see if anyone was at AE with a report, here was this one. I think I would have preferred someone a little more low-profile for my first AE block, but thems the breaks. I apologize if I incorrectly implied you were a member of said fan club. ] (]) 07:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: The ] thread really seemed inconclusive to me (except for its hatnote, which strangely enough suggests it is). Mark's ban, on the other hand, was decisive, as TS points out at the hatted thread, and may well be the reason for the contents of the hatnote.
	:::::::::: William and I get along well, but I don't like living under the implication that I'm out for my buddies. I was genuinely confused as to why both blocks were issued (and in part still am: though ] is clear in this regard (thanks again for the link), the local discussions were not.
	:::::::::: In all honesty, I'd be better off ignoring this area of WP completely, and am really considering doing so... or maybe just taking a looong break. I like writing articles, and all the controversy too often leaves me feeling too cynical to do that. ] (]) 07:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}

	== very, very strange format error ==

	{{tlx\|helpme}}
	Ok, you help regulars know when it's me it's going to be some type of wiki-coding issue, and usually it's something dumb that I missed, but not this time. Look at ]. Under the link for Cla68 there is a seemingly blank entry. It is the link for ] but it is somehow transposed way down the page. Now look at my subpage ] exact same issue, even though I used {{tlx\|userlinks}} instead. How could this one username be generating this same error repeatedly? ] (]) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Ok, I thought about this and I realized that I had also copied the div formatting from the ArbCom page. I removed it and now the links are normal. I still don't get it, but it is fixed on my subpage. ] (]) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

	== References. ==

	] was added with a reference. However, when scrolling down to the references and clicking the first link, it takes the user to a page cannot be found page. However, the "Malcolm joins TeenNick" link works, which is basically the same link. I'm not exactly sure what to do, so do you think you could fix it so the reference shows up correctly? Thanks in advance. - ] (]) 03:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==
	{{collapse top\|not really interested in having this conversation}}
	Please read the above decision carefully. I point, in particular, to ] and ]. "" is not acceptable. I appreciate that this is a high-stress situation. However, I believe you actions are ill-considered and not covered by policy or consensus (they may enjoy a plurality at the moment). I reserve the right to criticise actions I consider wrong without being the subject of comments like the above. You might remember "]". That holds in the plural, too. --] (]) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	:Why don't you go warn WMC for referring to me and others "twats" on his talk page? I let that go in the interest of not escalating this any further, but if you are going to make an issue out of an innocuous comment that is not directed at a particular user while WMC makes clearly directed personal attacks I guess we could go down that road. Personally I'd rather not. ] (]) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	::Aren't you supposed to be the good guy? "I'm still better than Sadam" leads both sides down to the lowest level quickly. William has been under years of organized on- and off-wiki attack. Nevertheless, I don't always support his language or style, and have told him so on occasion. Your actions have been criticised, rather mildly, for three days. --] (]) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::When our kids were little we never accepted "But Johnny did it too! Don't punish me, punish him!" Apparently it's okay for admins, though. ] (]) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}

	== "a message to WMC" ==
	{{collapse top\|I have nothing further to say on this matter}}
	I am posting here mainly because, as I read it, any attempt to reply to you in the "uninvolved administrators" section would be moved elsewhere, as I am not an administrator. (I have never applied to be an administrator, and I respect the people who have the time and the motivation to be able to say that they want to be an administrator.) What I mainly object to is the suggestion that WMC has been blocked "as a message". In my experience, WMC is a scientist who has not needed "messages". He may be his own worst enemy sometimes; he may push the limits sometimes (especially recently); but in my experience he understands clear statements. His problem has been that he sees things in a black and white way and won't back down unless it's laid out in an equally black and white way. I genuinely don't understand what has been achieved by blocking him for 2 weeks on an issue which is still considered unclear by many editors. If the only point was to "send a message" to anyone else who disagreed with the recent ArbCom ruling, then I think it was achieved in a way which opens the adminstrators and ArbCom to accusations of arbitrariness and draconianism. I believe the correct approach would have been to get ArbCom to clarify its ruling, on WMC's talk page if necessary. And if he still wouldn't back down... well, I'm not going to defend the man to the death. But I am not convinced that the current block should have been imposed. --] (]) 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

	:I am sorry you are dissatisfied with the outcome, but I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree. It seems clear that the block will stand and not be reversed at this point, and I have already discussed this matter at great length. ] (]) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

	::"not interested in having this conversation"; "discussed this matter at great length"; having gone back through the discussion pages, the closest I could find to a definitive statement from you was: "Talking for several months didn't work. Warning them not to try and find holes in the ban didn't work. Blocking is all we have left." You also said that you would be prepared to block "the other side", however I am disappointed by the statement "blocking is all we have left". You have still not persuaded me that the block achieved anything that a warning wouldn't have. The statement "blocking is all we have left" seems to be abandoning any attempt at reason, with an editor who is not irrational. I do not expect to change your mind, however I would ask you to consider how your actions come across to others. It is highly unclear to me what has been achieved by a 2 week block that could not have been achieved by a clarification. It may even have actually raised the temperature, in an area where I would hope we are all trying to promote calmer discussion. --] (]) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}

	== Cleared Autoblock ==

	. There apparently is all of ] behind this IP. --] (]) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Thanks ==

			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	'''My talk''' Thanks for the {{tl\|unsigned}} and the explanation. I took a quick look at the contribs, but it wasn't important enough for me to start looking at dozens of diffs to see if I had reverted using Huggle. I appreciate the heads-up. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
			* 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.
			] '''Technical news'''
			* 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'''
	== RfA ping ==
			* 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}}.

			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	* Please pardon the intrusion. Your response at my RfA showed dissatisfaction with my answer to question #1; I believe question #17 may be relevant. Thank you for your time and trouble. • ] (]) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	:Given that you had to be asked four times, and had to have a user spoon-feed you a possible answer before you replied with any degree of specificity I'm afraid my opinion remains the same. By all accounts you are a fine editor of content, but as I have said, candidates are supposed to have at least a passing understanding of admin work and the criteria under which the admin toolset should be used ''before'' applying for adminship. As many others have suggested, if you could get some experience in these areas while at the same time striving not to let your "dark side" come out you might be a more acceptable candidate in the future. ] (]) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
	:* Oh. I thought I had already very clearly said (in my self-nom statement, and repeating myself in Q1) that I wanted to start out with gnomish tasks, then move up under mentorship. But anyhow, thanks for your swift reply! :-) Cheers. • ] (]) 23:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
	::That's just it, "gnomish tasks" is incredibly vague and covers a wide spectrum of editing, much of which does not require admin tools. I myself have been using ] in on-and-off doses over the last few weeks to work on categorizing the ten thousand or so uncategorized articles we have, something any user can do if they want. You may find that you can get the variety you crave and the experience people like to see in admin candidate at the same time. ] (]) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
	::* Good suggestion! Thanks. • ] (]) 23:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

			----
	== 1980 Lynn Sailors ==
			{{center\|{{flatlist\|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{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=1266956718 -->

			== Unblock of ] ==
	You recently closed an afd ]. Please reconsider your decision. ] started a discussion of the issues involved in this afd at the sports notability ] and asked those of us who wanted to save the article to suspend afd discussion until the larger issue was resolved there. It is yet to be resolved there and it has been suggested that this will affect dozens of minor league season articles across several sports. ] (]) 01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	: Kinston eagle is correct. There is ongoing, although stalled, discussion at the link above regarding determination of notability of individual minor league seasons not just for baseball, but for team sports in general. While the general track of the discussion seems to be that we should simply use the ], I don't consider the discussion complete. While I may not personally think that the Sailors article, as it stands, passes GNG, I do think that your decision to close this AfD with a result of delete may have been premature, and also request a reconsideration on that basis. -] (]) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	::I based my close on the consensus at the AFD. If policy is changed in the future to include this type of article it can easily be undeleted or recreated at that time. ] (]) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::Right. I believe Kinston eagle's concern was that others, like himself, may have refrained from commenting due to my request for discussion at the sports notability talk page. I just don't want my good faith request to have -- or, indeed, to appear to have -- resulted in a false consensus. There are, after all, a number of other such pages, for which the result of this AfD will likely be used as a precedent, and some pains should probably be taken that the precedent is as clear as possible. -] (]) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I'm afraid I don't see it that way. This purpose of this afd was to decide the fate of this one article according to current guidelines as policies. AFD is not for doing "test cases," if a policy or guideline needs to be changed it can be discussed elsewhere. If there is a future change in policy that invalidates the arguments to delete I would be happy to restore the article at that time. This request to restore now is a bit to hypothetical for my taste. ] (]) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	::::::That's totally fair, and understandable. After all, I agree with the result. Just know that it is ''because'' I agree with the result that I want to ensure that my appeal to put the AfD on hold did not weigh too much in the decision to delete. I do not want to be seen as having "shut down debate", as some might put it, because that was in no way my intention. In fact, my intention was the opposite. Also, it's so much that this was meant to be a "test case", but that there were other articles that would have been added to ''this'' AfD, that may not have been added to it due to my original appeal. In any case, I will not pursue the matter further vis-a-vis this particular article. Thank you for your consideration. -] (]) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

			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)
	== Revdel ==

			:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi. I wonder if a RevDel of might be in order? It seems especially obnoxious considering the subject is only 13 years old. Thanks in advance -- ] (]) 08:47, 31 October 2010 (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)
	:Normally I would have said that it is fairly normal idiotic vandalism, but given their age I decided to err on the side of caution. ] (]) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	::~~Thanks - and yeah,~~ I'd ~~have just left~~ it if ~~she~~ ~~wasn't~~ ~~a minor~~. -- ] (]) 08:33, 1 ~~November~~ ~~2010~~ (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 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)
	I saw you declined this user for a username violation last night. Although having "sock" in and of itself isn't a username violation, in this case it was either a reincarnation or an impersonator of a banned user, ]. ] blocked him after he opened a DRV for his hoax article for that reason. Thought I'd let you know. ] (]) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	:As I said at the time, all that stuff is outside the scope of a report on a username violation. It's preferable to block for the more serious problem if the username is just an clue and not blockable unto itself, which is what happened in this case. So, in my view the system worked properly here. ] (]) 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	::I thought impersonation usernames (which is almost certainly what this was) would fall under disruptive, but what you say makes sense. Duly noted, thanks. ] (]) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

			:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== DEGW ==
			::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 ==
	Hi There, I have been researching ] for a while now and would like to submit some information to Misplaced Pages, but due to some failed attempts I believe it is blocked.

			Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
	Before I pull the page together fully and push it out, could you please take a look at the current rough draft. This still needs a lot of work to make it fully Misplaced Pages friendly, but I would like some guidance so that I am moving in the right direction.
	Can you help? The draft is here: ] Thank you ] (]) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
	:{{tps}} I can take care of this, I'll leave a message on their talk page. ] (]) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

			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>
	==It's raining thanks spam!==
			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.
	* Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
	* There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (], ], ], and ]). You can also consider becoming a ]. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for ] yourself!
	* If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • ] (]) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

			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>
	== ] ==

	~~Hey!~~ ~~Allow~~ me to ~~extend~~ my ~~thanks~~ ~~again~~ ~~for~~ ~~offering~~ to ~~take~~ ~~this on. I know it's~~ a ~~big~~ ~~task.~~ I am ~~just~~ ~~checking~~ in to ~~see~~ ~~how~~ ~~things are coming~~. ~~Let me~~ ~~know~~ if ~~you~~ ~~need~~ me to ~~clarify~~ ~~anything~~ ~~or give~~ you ~~more~~ ~~context.~~ ~~SYS~~... ] (]) 16:21, 4 ~~November~~ ~~2010~~ (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)
			::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)
	:I know it's been a while, sorry about that. Every time I try to read it over and finish the close I end up getting called away, I've been trying to find an hour or two when I know I'll be able to read the whole monstrosity and summarize it. 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
	:: ~~That's~~ ~~okay.~~ ~~We're~~ ~~just~~ ~~eager~~ to ~~keep~~ ~~moving.~~ ~~Get~~ to it ~~when~~ you ~~can~~. ] (]) 20:13, 4 ~~November~~ ~~2010~~ (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 ] ==
	]; that may or may not have any impact on your read of the RFC. ''']''' ('']'') 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
			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 ==

			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)
	Usual gang seems intent on removing large sections in an edit war. Kindly examine. Thanks. ] (]) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (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	Jan	Total
CfD	22	20	42
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	7	5	12
RfD	39	10	49
AfD	0	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)