Misplaced Pages

User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:53, 2 June 2011 editProdego (talk | contribs)30,033 edits →Badger Drink: new section← 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 
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? ==
] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
</big>
</div>
]


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)
== For your essay writing at ] ==


: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)
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
::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)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
:::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)
|rowspan="2" |
::::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)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your essay work at ] has been one of my major influences for years, both on and off Misplaced Pages. Don't let a blocked sock let you think any differently, your essay matters. ] (]) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
|}
:Well thank you very much, it's always gratifying to know your work is appreciated. ] (]) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::Hopefully I can use it to encourage administrators to make more effort to reform blocked users rather than just shut them out from editing. There's one ] who probably would have responded better to civility and helpful suggestions rather than the administrative actions that were limited to the denied block appeal templates. Aside from the username and some less than ideal responses on his/her talk page to cookie-cutter reasons to deny unblocking, the user seemed to be a rather constructive editor interested in bettering Misplaced Pages. I understand that Misplaced Pages isn't the same as Kongregate by any means, but from a community management perspective, I can't see any reason for administrators to be anything but civil and helpful to even the worst problem users so they can better themselves. --] (]) 00:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


== ACN == == 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 ]. 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)
Hi! Would you care to clarify who you meant by your comment ? Maybe it should be obvious, but at least I can't find a user that would fit your description. Regards, ] (]) 12:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:<small>replied elsewhere. ] (]) 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)</small>


:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 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. -- ] (]) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The webcomic Lackadaisy has been nominated for a major award, the ]. I was going to add the nomination to the article, but see it was deleted (barely) in February. Would you have any objection to me restoring the article, and adding the Eisner nomination? I believe it meets the standard for notability. --]]] 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:As I was only the closer for the AFD it is less about my objections than the those who actually participated in the AFD. However, I don't see any significant coverage of the comic itself in those sources, which is exactly why it was deleted to begin with. If it actually wins it may get more significant attention. ] (]) 20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: Does this mean that you would object to an undelete? I agree that the AfD was borderline, so it kind of falls into the category of admin discretion. Personally, I would have closed the AfD as "no consensus, defaults to Keep", but it's a borderline enough case that I could see that different admins would have closed it differently, so it's not really worth taking it to DRV. I do see that there was more press about Lackadaisy in ''Draw!'' magazine, but sadly it is print only and not online. I do feel that the Eisner award nomination, and the new press, do mean that the article should be restored. Or, what else would you like to see, in order to justify undeleting the article? --]]] 17:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::: BTW, here's the cite on the 14-page article (which I'd like to add if we undelete):
:::* <small>{{cite news|title=Cats, Gats, and all that Jazz: an interview with Tracy Butler|author=Manley, Mike|authorlink=Mike Manley (artist)|work=]|pages=27&ndash;41|date=Spring 2011|volume=1|number=20|publisher=]}} </small>
:::--]]] 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::::I can't really say if I would object to it or not without seeing the new version, I'm not opposed to it in principle and if you have more significant sources than were in use before then it shouldn't be subject to CSD under G4 either. I would say either userfy it or slap {{tlx|inuse}} on it after restoring while you add new content and sources and you should be good to go. ] (]) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, and would you like to undelete it, or shall I, with a note that I discussed it with you? Also, as another option, I'm wondering if the whole thing should be moved to ], since the interviews tend to be with her rather than specifically about the webcomic itself, and then there could be a section on Lackadaisy in her article, which we could redirect the Lackadaisy link to. Any thoughts on that? --]]] 20:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I went ahead and re-created the article at ]. With your permission, I'll move it back into mainspace? --]]] 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I only see one problem: some text in the new draft is partially based on the deleted version so a ] should probably be done, or you could restore the deleted version and then indicate by edit summary that you are merging in content from this draft. Somehow the attribution for the original work needs to be attached to this new version. ] (]) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: Yeah, I was thinking about that too, and agree that undeleting and merging is the way to go. We'd hate to lose all the edit history! --]]] 17:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: I have gone ahead and undeleted and expanded the article, per our discussions. I wasn't quite sure how to notate this in the {{tl|multidel}} template though! Could you take a look at how I did it at ]? Feel free to make any changes you'd like. Thanks, --]]] 17:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: As a followup, I have located a number of additional sources and added them to the article, so I think it's doing pretty well now. Thanks again for your help! --]]] 20:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


== Possible new old user == == Request ==


Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you were the admin who unblocked ] (]) back in October. He had been using multiple accounts, but it seemed like a fair case of a lack of understanding the rules. Anyway, I've recently noticed a new user, ] (]). This user's edits begin 2 days after M4pnt's left off, and seem to be on the exact same articles or types of articles (European/Swedish death metal musicians/bands/albums, and UFC-related articles, including specific fighters, albeit different fighters per account). Mtlv0's edits on the death metal articles I'm watching/editing are very similar to M4pnt's. I personally don't know how to determine whether two accounts are the same person (using the whois feature, for example), so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I could be completely wrong here, which is why I figured starting a note on your talk page would be better than making wild accusations and starting a sock-puppet review. I'm also not saying that anyone should be blocked (except any puppet accounts if they do in fact exist), but maybe reminded again about the multiple accounts policy (if it ''is'' the same user, Misplaced Pages policy doesn't seem to stick, he needs reminders every so often). Lastly, if this entire post is out-of-bounds, then please accept my apologies and feel free to delete and ignore it. ] (]) 01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:This was a while ago so I'm still looking at the details, but I did warn them quite clearly about using multiple accounts when they were unblocked. There may be a ] issue here, the previous socks were also rather obvious. ] (]) 19:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::Alright, I'm now convinced it's the same editor, under a new name (obviously so he could go back to his poor editing style and pretend like he didn't know that). he says that someone already told him about a page, that this user hasn't ever edited. However, he was told (by myself and another editor) here: ]. Can you check this out? It's starting to become disruptive, and going back to revert all these edits is quite time-consuming. If I can do anything, please let me know. Thanks! ] (]) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I;m thinking it's probably time to file at ] and let a checkuser look into it. ] (]) 22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Alright, will do. Thanks! ] (]) 02:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::See ] ] (]) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (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)
== It is happening again... ==
::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 ==
...please see ]. ] (]) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== There is a problem that you may be able to resolve with an unusual intervention ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Hello Beeblebrox,
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
] often requests checkusers at ] in a surreptitious manner, whilst he is a twofold indef-blocked and community banned user. The last time that happened was 3 days ago via a Ip and then via a registered sock account . I tried to obstruct the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi with making about 20 reverts on that page as banned users have no right to edit Misplaced Pages, but his exertions were eventually successful in launching the process again. Originally, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi , just like YellowFF0, who was the second submitter of the page..
:] ]
:''And because the most active participant of this checkuser request page was Iaaasi, yet when he was allowed to edit the English Misplaced Pages under his original account and he is still a recurring host there....''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
Would it be in order to request Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to be semi-protected so that the page to be possible to edit only by established users?
|]
:(I know well that it may seem strange that if a checkuser request page is semi-protected , but his IP range is too wide to a perennial Ip range-block.)
|]
--] (]) 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
::Wow. We sure do attract some odd people here don't we? I've run into something similar to this before, another banned user who was tagging their own sockpuppet accounts. Why? No idea. I'm sure a research psychologist would have a field day analyzing the behavior of some of the banned trolls and their bizarre activities. Anyway, if it's a continuing problem there may be a case for semi protecting the page, but the level of disruption would have to be pretty bad since those accused of socking are often unconfirmed users and they need the opportunity to defend themselves from the accusations. ] (]) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
:::Okay. Thanks for your answer.--] (]) 13:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::::FYI he also emailed me and apparently several other other users with oversight permission about this, so there are more eyes on it now. ] (]) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
==DYK for Randy Roth==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
{{tmbox
|]
|style = notice
|]
|small =
|]
|image = ]
|]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']''' was convicted of faking a boating accident in order to cover up the murder of his fourth wife?'' 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 ].
|]
}} ] (]) 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
}}
:] ]


</div>
:3,200 views in six hours! I'd like to thank my mom, the academy, and Jesus. Wait, scratch that, I'd like to thank Ann Rule and the reporters at The Seattle Times circa 1992. ] (]) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Feedback ==
* 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'''
Hi Beeb. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on ]. Thanks. --] (]) 04:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
* 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'''
== MONGO and the edit war at the 9/11 article ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
Thank you for intervening to keep the editorial process going at our article on 9/11. Can I ask you to keep an eye on as well? He had a spate of edit-warring on the article back in February, followed by this recent disruptive revert while an RfC is actually in progress on the talk page. He already knows about the Arbcom remedies as he has been blocked once already for his behavior there. While prompt edit-warring is an obvious threat, slow motion and tag-team edit-warring by experienced editors should also be regarded as sanctionable, in my opinion. See what you think, and thanks again for taking on this task. Wow! I just saw which I see you reverted so you are already aware of this. I see you warned him back then and received in reply. I believe civility was one of the recommendations of the 2008 Arbcom case, wasn't it? --] (]) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
:Yes it was. However my primary goal is to calm everyone down, blocking MONGO for that would probably not have helped with that goal. Since it was me he was attacking I couldn't really issue the block anyway. Despite what MONGO thinks I don't like blocking good faith users unless there is no other choice, and I take ] more seriously than many other admins. Hopefully this latest RFC will resolve this issue for a while, although I'm sure it will come back eventually. ] (]) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
* ]
::Yeah, and I shouldn't have posted here without properly researching your involvement. Sorry about that. Please keep up the good work there. --] (]) 04:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{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've got mail}} ] (]) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (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)
==DYK for Richard Laurence Marquette==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that serial killer ''']''' was the first person to be an eleventh name on the ]'s ] list?'' 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 ].
}} ] (]) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
:*ZING! 8.8k views! ] (]) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

== Ma'ale HaShalom info removal ==

Hi Beeblebrox,

I would prefer not to edit-war, so I am bringing this up here. I think that for the good of the outcome of this Afd that the info you tried to remove should remain there so a fair judgment can be made. If the Afd is closed as a keep, feel free to remove it afterwards, and I will not revert it anymore. ] (]) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
:You don't seem to grasp some of our core content policies. ] being the primary one at play here. There are no ] that discuss the subject and say it is a street name. None. Not even one. I therefore removed the content that seemed to be ] and the content sourced to a novel. We can't present unverified material as if it were fact. The only source remaining is the much touted guide to every street name in Jerusalem, which says this is the name of a gate and does not mention a street by this name. This is the third time I have endeavored to explain all this to you, the third time I have indicated which policies are being violated, and the third time you have insisted that your personal feeling about this issue somehow overrides all these policy violations. You are dead wrong sir, and reverting it again without even attempting to refute my policy based reasoning would in fact be edit warring. You ask that users be allowed to make a fair judgement. I agree. They can judge the article based on the two sentences that can actually be verified, and not all the made up stuff that was removed. Since I noted my actions at the AFD anyone participating there would know to look in the page history for the old versions that contained the multiple violations of our ]. You do understand that we don't generally allow people to just make stuff up and post it as if it were fact, don't you? ] (]) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
::So, what does "see discussion" mean? In this discussion, and at the AFD I have outlined clearly and specifically what the problems are with this content, and cited several policies that are relevant to the situation. You have said nothing beyond "I don't think we should do that while the AFD is underway" and you have stated you don't want to edit war, while you have in fact reverted my edits twice without citing any policy, guideline, or anything other than your own feelings. So, do you have a policy, guideline, or other reason to cite above and beyond your own feelings or have you decided that your feelings will now dictate what is and is not allowed in a Misplaced Pages article and we'll just throw the five pillars out the window in favor of your emotions? ] (]) 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hi Beeblebrox, I'd like to thank you for the hook you with for my DYK. .Regards.--] (]) 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Wow, that's a lot of page views! ] (]) 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{{you've got mail}}

== re: ... ==

. Actually it is sort of mentioned in the (last item), it's just that it's titled as: "Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War"; which is kind of where this all got started. Took me a while to find it, but I thought I had seen someone post something about those "short horizontal lines" on that page a while back. How's it going Beebs? Hope all is well, Cheers. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 06:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
:I really do think it is the all-time champion of lame disputes. I thought I had seen it all on here, but arguing at such length and with such intensity over something so meaningless is a new low. Doing well generally, kind of dismayed at the direction Misplaced Pages is headed though. Seems like you can't get anything done without having a 2-6 month long debate about it anymore. The ] fiasco being a perfect example, the main question it was meant to resolve was pushed to the back and remains unaddressed. Been doing some more article work lately to remind myself of what actually ''is'' important around here. ] (]) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

'''Task Force news''': Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the ], additional comments on the ], a new project sub page and talk for ], and messages at ]. A current priority is to reach suggested ], and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --] (]) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

== request to check the oversight log ==

Could you please have a look at ] and confirm whether the log was oversighted? It is either that or some kind of bug. '''Yoenit''' (]) 07:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
:Both the suppression and deletion logs come up blank, despite the fact that the page was obviously deleted. Never seen anything like that before, must be some kind of weird bug. ] (]) 18:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
::It will do that if somebody uses RevDel on the deletion log entry. ] (]) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

== Closing RfC ==
When the RfC at ] runs its course, are you planning on closing it? Or should we seek an admin at ]. Either works for me, but I was just curious. ] (]) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
:Hadn't thought about it, wasn't really planning on closing it. Even though I didn't participate I am trying to keep this debate at arm's length as much as possible so if another admin is willing to do it that would be my preferred option. ] (]) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
::OK, that's fine. When it expires, I'll post a request at ]. ] (]) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re ] page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention.] (]) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

==Babaria==

Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re ] page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention.] (]) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:That user was on a bit of a tag-bombing spree, but he seems to have gotten the message to slow it down and be more accurate. I don't think there was ever any danger of the article actually being deleted since the nom was so obviously wrong, but thanks for noticing! ] (]) 16:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

== Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts ==

I noticed that you pulled the plug on both of these pages, despite some rather intense efforts to save them and an outcry from many readers. I have to ask: did you consider the sources included in these articles, including publications like the Oregonian and Cinematical, before deleting them? ] (]) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:There have already been many deletion discussions regarding these people and their show, including ]. ''']''' ''']''' ] 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
::The above account is most likely a sockpuppet of {{User|Stumptowner}}, btw. ''']''' ''']''' ] 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Looks like I missed all the excitement, been out all day. In the nearly inevitable case that this should come up again, I would direct any interested parties to my ], in which I explicitly explained the logic behind the close. ] (]) 01:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Saw and grinned. Thanks Beeblebrox. :) <font style="font-family: Georgia">]</font> 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

== File:Captainteague.jpg no longer orphaned. ==

After the deletion of the individual character article for Captain Teague and its subsequent redirect to ], I have edited this image into the latter article and it is no longer orphaned. --''''']''''' <small>(])</small> 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
:Noted, nomination retracted. ] (]) 04:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

== Discussions ==

Hi Beeb, I agree 100% with your statement - so true. That's why it's almost impossible to get anything done. I just hope RFA2011 doesn't get snarled up the same way. --] (]) 08:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
:I'm still hopeful it won't end up like ] but not as hopeful as I was at first. ] (]) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

== User review ==
Sorry about that, I just was troubled by the fact that user was driven away by block and wanted to know whether a name like that would be allowed according to policy. Sorry for not checking. &ndash;]] 19:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
:These things happen. I would say the name is borderline promotional, maybe Mike could have tried discussing first. ] (]) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
::Though I'll have to swallow my pride, I'll agree on the latter. &ndash;]] 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

==Principality of Wy==
Hello, I was not personally attacked, had a bit of a go at ] directed at me but all in good humour, hope I didn't offend anyone unnecessarily, so I would ask that the deleted bits be put babck. Regards ] (]) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
:Two problems with that: you were the one ''making'' personal attacks, and the "Principality" does not publish its address, so we shouldn't either. Suppression is not an action that is undertaken lightly and I have no intention of reversing it. I happen to agree that the whole thing is a bit silly, but the fact is that they have chosen not to publish their address on their website, it only has a P.O. box, and I haven't seen it in any of the other sources used. Looking up the residents address in the phone book and putting it together yourself isn't going to get us past that hurdle. Best to let it go, it's hardly the critical point of the discussion. ] (]) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

{{out}} I have reverted but perhaps it needs further action? Then was followed by . ] (]) 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:Another oversighter got there first. Now that there are three oversighters/admins advising Crusoe8181 to stop posting that information lest he blocked I should hope he will finally get the point. ] (]) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

== Request ==


:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, as you know AKG looked into my latest block and the bans associated with it, and came to conclusion neither were warranted. Later after my email exchange with you, and by my request AGK modified my block log, and now he's getting reminded about this all the time with . I would not like an absolutely innocent person to suffer because of me. AGK is a fair, thoughtful and honest administrator. He declined my ban appeal, when he felt I did not deserve to get my ban lifted, just a few days ago he . He does not deserve to be talked about as he is supporting me in one way or another or prefers me to other users. He is not. He changed my block log, when I asked him to because I have been constantly harassed over the silly bans Gwen added to my block log, with the latest episode of such harassment being
::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. ==
Anyway to make a long story short, I would not like AGK to suffer because he did a fair adjustment to my block log. He is guilty in nothing. He is not my friend, and he is not my supporter. He is just a fair person, and this offense:-) is not punishable even on wikipedia :-) So, to stop this unfair treatment of AGK, may I please ask you to oversite the change he made to my block log? If somebody should suffer because of my unfair block log, it should be me and me alone.


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)
Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your time and your understanding.--] (]) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's very generous of you, but I'm afraid I can't do that. When one is preparing to delete a revision or log entry you see the following warnings:
::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)
::*Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping.
::*Log redaction (outside of the very limited scope of criterion RD2 for the move and deletion logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs, whether or not proper.


== Potential topic ban violation ==
:As you can see from that, the main thing that would be accomplished by taking such an action would be me losing my oversight and possibly administrative rights. You could try asking ] directly, they are able to make exceptions a single admin cannot. ] (]) 04:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
::Yes, I see now. Sorry I asked you. Thank you for taking the time to respond and to explain the situation to me. Best wishes.--] (]) 04:54, 31 May 2011 (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>
== possible self block request ==
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>
I am right now considering a self block request. If I want it, I will let you know shortly. ] (Jacob) <sup>] or </sup>/<sub> ]</sub> 22:27, 1 June 2011 (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)
== Email ==
::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 ] ==
{{you've got mail}} I also mentioned you Thank you.--] (]) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (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)


== Badger Drink == == 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)
Yes, as I very clearly specified I blocked him not because of for '''the report''' to WQA, but for his comment there. I strongly disagree with an unblock, and will take this to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:37, 8 January 2025



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


please stay in the top three tiers



XFD backlog



V

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Total




CfD

0

0

22

20

42




TfD

0

0

0

1

1




MfD

0

0

0

0

0




FfD

0

0

7

5

12




RfD

0

0

39

10

49




AfD

0

0

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



−


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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



added Sennecaster


readded 


removed 


 CheckUser changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


removed Ferret




 Oversight changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


 Guideline and policy news




 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




 Miscellaneous






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 (dc̄) 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)