User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:36, 28 December 2011 editPorchcorpter (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,770 editsm →Porchcorpter: undated← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:39, 7 January 2025 edit undoLaundryPizza03 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users51,191 edits →Deletion review for Guite people: 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)

			: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)
	== Staying true to form ==
			::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 ==
	The IP editor you blocked in the ] article immediately came back and made the same revert . Then he turned around and went to the talk page and.....well........ He's not going to comply. ] (]) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

			Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at ]. Do you think there's a ] or ] problem with respect to {{no ping\|Socceroos TV}}? I just want a second opinion before adding {{tlx\|uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- ] (]) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Appears this issue has gone {{stale}}. ] (]) 19:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Nope. He did it again today . He is also editing under the account ] and using the article talk page and my talk page to harrass RepublicanJacobite. ] (]) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

			:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	== neo-geo Picture ==
			::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 ==
	Hi
	I saw you uploaded a neo-geo cab picture. I'm trying to develop french neo-geo mvs article and i'm looking for pictures to illustrate it. If you still have your neo-geo cab, is it possible for you to upload pictures ?

			Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	what would be nice : front side with shot of the coin door, and the insert memory card area. a a shot really nearby butoon to show buttons and joysktiskcs. It it possible to take a picture (or some) of your mvs board without the crate that we can see components

			:{{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)
	Thanks before, and best regards --] (]) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
			::Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ah, gotcha. ] ] 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. ] ] 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks! ] (]) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
	:Hi. Just got back in town and may be able to help with some of this soon. However I won't be able to provide a shot of the sticks and buttons, per ]. My NeoGeo is custom painted and the painting contains trademarked characters and weapons from Meal Slug. In case you haven't seen them, I have also uploaded ] and ], which are both on Commons and may be reused elsewhere. I can probably get some other useful shots such as you requested as well. ] (]) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Hi, yes i already used one of your pics, but i crooped it that it only shows the mvs system (i gave you copyright, the pic is on commons).
	::OK, all shoots you can take are wellcome, upload what you can.
	::I will try to add your neogeo cart --] (]) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

			] from the past month (December 2024).
	== BigzMMA and Civility ==

			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by ] with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the ] entitled ]. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (]) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you ] (]) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	:Looks like that's now been referred elsewhere. ] (]) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

			] '''Administrator changes'''
	== Block of North Koreans on the board ==
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	Hello, Beeblebrox. I have just done something that I have never done before, namely over-ride another admin's block with a different block. You blocked ] with a username block. However, I was very unhappy with a block that invited the user to continue to edit ("Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username.") for a user whose only edits were vandalism. I have replaced the block with a vandalism only block. If you strongly disagree then please restore your original block: I will not regard it as wheel warring, and I will not make any objection. ] (]) 11:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]

			</div>
	:I wouldn't say I strongly disagree with it, but it does seem rather pointless to modify a block 19 days later just to change the reason, especially in light of the facts that they made exactly two edits, were never warned for vandalism as is normally done for a vandalism block, and have not appealed my block. Even if I had hardblocked them, the autoblock would be long expired by now so I'm unclear on why this was so upsetting to you, but whatever. ] (]) 05:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]

			] '''Oversight changes'''
	::I'm afraid somehow I failed to notice that the block was 19 days old: I thought it was a new block. How on earth I made that mistake I can't imagine. Under the circumstances I agree that what I did was completely pointless. ] (]) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]

			</div>
	== Recent Porchcorpter MfDs ==
			</div>

	Was there a reason you didn't discuss the pages with him first, just taking them straight to MfD? Seems to me that this could have been done with a little more pleasantly. ] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> (]) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
	:He has consistently been unreceptive to anything I have to say, so it seemed better to seek a consensus than to argue with him directly. ] (]) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
	::That's fair enough, for future reference, you could always come via me :) ] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> (]) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi, as I explained on the talk page, this appears to have no content on the subject of the article: the infobox relates to a Town Council, not the same thing at all. So I reckon it has zero content and thus should be speedied. ]] 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:I'm not positive that would get us around the problem, but that fact that ] is a bluelink does. I've deleted it as ]. ] (]) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

	::Note: It's not covered unless you count the redirect. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

	== Oi put that back ==

	You just deleted ]. You deleted it without waiting. Undelete it thank you. I only started it yesterday and went to do something else and come back. You aren't supposed to delete anything so quickly as that if it is not vandalism and you know that or you shouldn't be permitted to delete anything. Thank you. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Hi, please read the thread directly above this one. Their own webpage, which you linked to in that article clearly identifies the organization as ''town'' council, and not a county council. That organization is already covered elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	::I'll just put what I had in <s>an</s> 2 edit confilt with you there and will read that then. If you want to get all picky you should click the link you claim it duplicates. Apologies for mixing up town and council in the title but I'd rather you just undelete it so I don't have to go all over the infobox again which actually took a little while. The content is supposed to be at ] at which the is no content currently. Is that okay? ] could be a redirect because there isn't one and it's just an easy mistake if you are looking through county councils. Sorry if I sound aggrivated now I am just surprised is all. 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)<font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font>
	:::I was in the way of not being in a rush about doing it either I might have done it tomorrow or something... <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::Your infobox is now at ] where you can work with it at your leisure until it is actually an article. Articles should normally have some content. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with at least one sentence on the subject. ] (]) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Spot on cheers. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

	== Company Page ==

	Can you undelete ] I'm just starting the article and you deleted within a minute or so. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:The ] apply at all times, regardless of the age of the article. Further, this was just an infobox and did not have a single line of text. It is clearly not ready for article space, and it is also likely that the subject is not sufficiently ] for an entry. Therefore I have ] it so that you can work to resolve these problems before reposting it, it is now at ]. <small>(in the future please use the "New section" tab to post new comments at the ''bottom'' of talk pages, thanks.)</small> ] (]) 20:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

	==City of Westminster==
	Beeblebrox, could you possibly restore the section on Banksy that was the subject of the edit war in the page on ]? Now that the page is blocked (for which many thanks) I am no longer in a position to edit it, and therefore unable to restore the section. I imagine that the anonymous IP edits will start up again as soon as the protection is removed, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. Thanks in advance for your patience and assistance - ] (]) 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Sorry, can't do that. I went with full protection to ''stop'' the edit warring, not to take a side in it. See . ] (]) 16:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Oh dear, in that case how is one supposed to resolve an edit conflict? What is needed is surely some kind of 3rd party review, else we will simply have an indefinite edit war, which can be in no-one's interest. I requested the block in order to try to resolve things, not simply to freeze the page. My mistake perhaps? Thanks in advance for any clarification. ] (]) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Not a mistake, or I wouldn't have protected the page. However page protection is merely an administrative action and not part of our ] system. ], ] and ] are some of the options for soliciting outside opinions. ] (]) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

	It seems rather sad that "Asteuartw" is determined to get his own way despite the lack of support for his position. Is there any form of gentle system-generated discipline which can be imposed until an undertaking is provided to abide by the rules he is so fond of quoting ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Uh, no. We don't do "discipline". As I already said, ] is how disputes are resolved. ] (]) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

	This is all very nice but "we" (whoever that means) seem ready to distribute commendations for what is perceived to be sensible use of Misplaced Pages so it would seem logical to have some method of showing disapproval.

	However, having observed your comment in the next section, perhaps some constructive activity in the real world would be rather more appropriate than gatecrashing someone else's imaginary squabbles. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== renewed edit-warring on ] ==


	As soon as the page protection expired, {{user\|Bluesurfers}} is at it again . Furthermore, I am certain he is a sock of {{user\|HOOTmag}}, see here . Thanks, ] (]) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
	:I am involved in dealing with a crisis at my job at the moment and it's not likely to be resolved for a few more days, so I really don't have time to look into this right now. Edit warring can be reported at ], sockpuppetry at ]. ] (]) 04:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
	==Talkback==
	{{talkback\|Hasteur\|ts=04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

	== Short apology ==

	.] ] 06:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

	== AfD review ==

	You the AfD with "No consensus". I'd like to nominate it again, since no references have been provided. According to what I read ], I don't know if I have to directly ask you to open it again, or I have to open a deletion review. I'll appreciate your help. Thanks. --] - (]) - (]) 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
	:*] would be needed only if you believed that the closing was inappropriate and you wanted to challenge it. If you want to re-nominate in an attempt to arrive at a consensus you are perfectly free to go ahead and do that right now. ] (]) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Ok, thanks.--] - (]) - (]) 10:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

	== CSD proposal ==

	Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in ]. I'd love to hear your thoughts! ] (]) 04:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi Beeblebrox. You participated in ], in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on {{user\|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}. The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at ]. ] (]) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

	== A brownie for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thank you very much for unblocking me and giving me a chance to help the website. ] (]) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
	\|}

	== ] ==

	You unblocked this user , did you log the conditions anywhere ? and if not should the be ? as they have now been archived off the users talk page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Well, Brandon is obviously aware of what he has agreed to, and I'm not sure there is a place for logging simple unblock conditions. ] (]) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi Beeblebrox

			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	Things seem to have died down at ] to a point where I think we could draw a line under the proceedings. Those who posted concerns at the final ] section would appear to be satisfied to the extent that they have now added their names to the 'short' list of those who support the summary. I'd therefore like to invite you to do close this RfC/U, if you agree that such a move would be appropriate at this time. Regards. ] ] 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
			* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
	:It's looking pretty ready for a close. I'm at work right now, but I should have a chunk of time later on to write up a proper close. ] (]) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
			* 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.
	::Had a bit of time sooner than I thought, so I've done the close, but I've just been called back in. If nobody else gets to it I'll do the cleanup with listing template and such later. ] (]) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
			] '''Technical news'''
	:::{{done}} Yet another false alarm at work, so I've finished up delisting and archiving the results. ] (]) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
			* 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'''
			* 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'''
	== Comment ==
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	Hi. Um, will an editor be blocked indefinetly if they are caught doing the same thing (edit warring, personal attacks, etc.) over and over again? <font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Eventually. ] (]) 07:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
	== Rfa talk ==
	Beeblebrox...why do we leave what would in most cases be nothing but disruptive talkpage banter standing for the sake of...what exactly? I don't question your PP there as I did one edit and had no intention of reverting anyone...but hum...Malleus' comment was for what purpose you suspect? How did IT contribute to constructive dialogue?--] 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:As always, the protection has nothing to do with the dispute itslf and everything to do with stopping an edit war. The only other option was to liberally hand out short blocks to everyone involved. That seemed unlikely to help calm the situation. ] (]) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Fair enough....and I support the action but feel it was on the wrong version. Unconstructive talkpage commentary that is deliberately designed to insult ''should'' be removed.--] 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

			----
	== ] block ==
			{{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 ] ==
	Hey there. The above editor and I have worked together before on some genre-warring issues, and he asked me to look into his current block. I'm a little concerned that he was blocked along with the genre warrior he was engaged with; he was quite a distance from 3RR on that article. I've suggested that he ask for an unblock, but would also like to ask if you'd take another look and consider at least a reduction considering the attempted edits by the other editor did appear to be less than sourced from a quick glance. Cheers. ] <small>]</small> 03:20, 22 December 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)
	:If you have worked on edit warring issues before I'm sure you must be aware that the quality of the edits is not a relevant factor and 3RR is not an entitlement, especially after already having been blocked repeatedly for the edit warring. ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

			:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. I feel that GMA's edits are generally in the right as genre warriors tend to be very single-minded - note that the opposing editor in this question basically said in at least one edit summary 'I'll be glad to discuss this but I'm going to make my edits first' - and believe that the block - after a single informal warning - is excessive in this case. I would encourage another look, if possible; I understand if you feel otherwise, however. ] <small>]</small> 06:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			::It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. ] (] · ]) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure what was unclear to you about my point that the quality of the edits is not the issue. Unless the other user was outright vandalizing that is simply not relevant. He was just blocked last month for edit warring. That block was for four days. I don't see how extending the block period by three days is excessive, and I don't see you saying that he wasn't, in fact, edit warring so I'm afraid I don't see any compelling case presented to reconsider. ] (]) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::I ~~disagree~~ ~~with~~ ~~your~~ ~~stance,~~ ~~but~~ ~~thank you for your consideration~~. ] ~~<small>~~]</~~small~~> 20:35, 22 ~~December~~ ~~2011~~ (UTC)		:::I'll give it a shot I suppose. ] ] 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::~~:You~~ ~~might~~ ~~want~~ to ~~take~~ ~~another look at GAs talk~~ ~~page~~, ~~we've already worked it out. He has agreed to limit himself to 1RR on genre related edits and~~ I ~~have~~ ~~unblocked~~ ~~him~~. ] (]) 21:02, 22 ~~December~~ ~~2011~~ (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)
	:::Beeblebrox, Gunmetal Angel is back at AN3 in ] for a genre war. He has not broken 3RR or 1RR, but he has been consistently reverting his preferred genres back into the article over an extended period. Perhaps that deal should have been for 1RR/week. Your original action seems fine, but I'm leaving the AN3 report for someone else to close. Thanks, ] (]) 14:51, 24 December 2011 (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)
	::::<small>Note that the report is based on an incident from ''before'' the latest block, and has been declined as stale. ] (]) 19:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)</small>
			:::::::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. ==
	== rfc/u ? ==

			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 thought 3 of us (LibStar, mmeyers, and I) had certified the Hentzer RFC/U? What did we miss? ] 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:There is a section entitled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" that must be signed by at least 2 users withing 48 hours of the RFC being listed. 48 hours after it was listed the section was blank. At the time I deleted it, yours was the only signature. ] (]) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::I think it's reasonable to think LibStar or mmeyers intended to certify but just didn't understand the format properly. I know they had included diffs of their attempts to address the situation -- is this a recoverable error? ] 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::I'm inclined to counsel you that this is an RFC that has very little chance of leading to the result you want, but if LibStar were to post here to that effect I could restore the page. ] (]) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::Interesting that you think I have a particular result in mind; but in any event I'll notify LibStar. ] 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Not sure what you think I meant by that, the RFC has another section called "desired outcome." Since you certified the RFC it doesn't require the use of imagination to determine that that was your desired result. ] (]) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Oops. Well, you can hardly me expect to discuss intelligently the contents of a page that someone went up and deleted! Seriously, I mostly suggested this as a means of support to LibStart and mmeyers who are getting very frustrated with the lack of communication; if there already is a fairly clear community consensus that an editor could work essentially in isolation I sincerely am not aware of it. I'll be fine with whatever the consensus turns to be. Mostly I wanted more input than was happening at WQA. ] 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	BeetleBrox, could you please restore this RFC. Nobody Ent, is willing to certify. ] (]) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:You guys really aren't making this easy. Hes's the only one who '''did'' certify it. It needs at least one more user to do so. Would you be that user? ] (])\|
	:: yes I would. ] (]) 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
	:: Lol. Meta-bureaucracy fail. Frankly, I don't see point of this RfC/U after I've read the WQA thread. It's absolutely the same thing, with the same participants. ] (]) 05:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Ok, I've restored it, please certify it ASAP. ] (]) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

			:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Here's a cookie ==
			::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 ==
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| …For coming to a good conclusion on a situation I was a tad upset in. Also, I'll keep it cool on the ] bands. (= ] 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	\|}

			Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
	== Here's the mail, it never fails, it makes me wanna wag my tail, when it comes i wanna wail… MAAIIILLLLL!! ==

			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>
	{{YGM}}
			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.
	• ] 19:24, 24 December 2011 (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>
	== Porchcorpter ==

			: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)
	I just noticed that ] is back, with a full copy of the original ban proposal in its history with Porchcorpter's rebuttals appended. He seems determined to keep a copy of it hidden somewhere in his user pages. Do you think we should do anything about it? -- ] (]) 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	:*</small> ~~replied~~ by ~~email~~. ] (]) 04:32, 27 ~~December~~ ~~2011~~ (UTC)~~</small>~~		::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)
	*'''Note:''' Does not violate ''any'' userspace guidelines, there are '''no''' personal attacks there now, no comments are even on contributors. And since it has been said in the ] to link it to the archive, it is now linked to the archive. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 08:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	**Btw, in case, I've worked lots with Worm and I've got now much more knowledge about the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages. I've even passed Worm's adoption and got the barnstar for passing. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 09:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Which makes one wonder why you wanted to recreate this page at all, if you've supposdly matured so much as an editor. Literally ''nobody'' besides you feels that the topic ban was problematic, and it expired some time ago anyway. But really, I don't give two shits why you recreated it and I certainly don't want to hear any of your nonsensical reasons for doing so. Keep your little bitter pity party of a page if you makes you feel like you've accomplished something. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:00, 27 December 2011‎ (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->

			== Deletion review for ] ==
	== AN/I Notice ==
			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)
	==Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard ==
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Way to go. The ] has been tossed, don't be surprised whn it comes back and whacks you in the noggin. ] (]) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:39, 7 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	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	16	16
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	10	11
RfD	0	44	44
AfD	0	2	2

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)