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 15:29, 25 January 2014 editBegoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,915 editsm →Disappointed: more...← 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 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
<big>'''Welcome to my talk page'''


{{Archive basics

|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/Archive %(counter)d
<span></small>
|counter = 52
{{archives
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->
{{archives
| collapsible = yes | collapsible = yes
| collapsed = yes}} | collapsed = yes
|search=yes
]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.
|image = ]
|title = tracks of previous discussions
}}
{{clear}}
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}


]
]''' If you have a question or comment about an ] matter it would probably be better to post it at the relevant case page or the ArbCom noticeboard unless it is specifically about my own actions.
{{Admin tasks}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>


{{clear}}
] I am an ], but I will not be very active in that capacity during my term on the Arbitration Committee. If you need to request oversight, following the process at ] is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion.
−
{{skip to top and bottom}}


== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==


I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
</big>
</div>
]


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


== Username query ==
Hi Bee, thanks for your recent change to ]. I disagree with your changes, though; the two paragraphs you omitted contained some important information about Dr. Angelou's poetry, like her recitation of her inaugural poem. I re-wrote the section after completing ], and it's much shorter than what was there before. What do you think about putting it back? ] (]) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


:The usual practice in such cases is to provide a brief summary and a pointer to the sub-article, so four long paragraphs seemed a bit excessive to me, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. ] (]) 18:06, 29 December 2013 (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)


:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
==You've got mail!==
::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)
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)}}
] (]) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:Hi. Could you please answer mi e-mail? ] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


== Request ==
== and multiple socks==
Would you mind looking at the behaviour related to a single IP hopping editor that is happening
and as well as on the associated talk pages. --] (]) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The thing is "IP hopping" is not equal to "using multiple identities for purposes of deceiving others" which would constitute socking. In fact, a user may be totally unaware they are even doing it, or they may be moving around during the course of their day while editing from a mobile device. If you have concerns about their editorial behavior I suggest you bring them up with the user or at a relevant noticeboard, but as far as socking goes there does not appear to be any evidence of an intent to deceive. ] (]) 19:49, 1 January 2014 (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)
::: The IP is confused and angry and is making wild and unreasoned attacks. He/she is causing considerable disruption across the three article I linked above, as can be easily seen on the associated talk pages. The attacks show no sign as abating. I know of no "relevant noticeboards" on Misplaced Pages that deal skilfully with behaviour like this from IP hopping editors. There is little point blocking them. Given that no administrative support seems available in cases like this, would you advise content editors to just walk away? Or could the article be protected from IPs? --] (]) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (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 ==
::::Please don't ask me melodramatic leading questions like that. Asking one specific admin and not getting the reply you wanted does not equate to "no administrative support is available." Feel free to consider any of the following options:


] from the past month (December 2024).
::::*Talking to the user about the problem and trying to resolve it.
::::*Some form of ]
::::*Report at ]
::::*Asking for protection at ]


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
::::So you see, all sorts of assistance, both from admins and others, has been developed for you to turn to when you are unable to resolve something yourself, which as far as I can tell you have not actually tried yet.
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::::Not to put to fine a point on it, but today is my first full day as a member of the arbitration committee. I'm kind of busy with the business the community elected me to deal with and not looking to take on additional problems at the very bottom of the dispute resolution ladder right now. I am every bit as much a volunteer as you are and am not obligated to do whatever you ask. That is exactly why we have centralized noticeboards for such issues. ] (]) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
::::: Ah... I wasn't aware of WP:RFPP. Thank you for that, and apologies for being a nuisance. --] (]) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
::::::Epipelagic is lying, he has been defaming me on many pages, for example and . .
:] {{hlist|class=inline
::::::Do you know what is the best place for reporting uncivil and disruptive behaviour like that? ] (]) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
==Happy New Year Beeblebrox!==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
{| style="border: 4px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0;"
]
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif;" |
:::::::'''''Happy ]!'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid #ACACAC;" | Hello Beeblebrox:<br>Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable ]! Cheers, ] (]) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
<br>
]
<br>
<center><small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.</small></center>
|}</div>{{-}}

== Hey Boss ==

Happy new year. Hope you got to abuse your new powers already. Thanks for serving: no good deed will go unpunished. ] (]) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, it's a real hoot. Apparently it is a sort of tradition for various trolls, malcontents, and other blocked or banned users to immediately try their luck with/harass/threaten the new committee via email. It's delightful. But alas, no chance to abuse the powers just yet. I'm sure the opportunity will present itself soon enough. Of course I am handling it all . ] (]) 01:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
::Nice. OK, in that case, since you suffered enough, I'll give you fair warning: don't open the manilla envelope postmarked "Chattanooga", with the word "FRAGGILE" on it. It's a big old dog turd. ] (]) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
:::"Fraggile"? Isn't that Italian? --] (]) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Vandalism notice ==

I wasn't sure if you still had (or ever had) ] on your watchlist. A recent edit tipped me off to {{Vandal|Quellcrist49}}, who went even further with ]. All since reverted, but who knows how much further this will go. The funny thing about it? There really are a number of properties alongside or within sight of the Old Steese which are genuine eyesores, and the "Ester lesbians" may be a metaphor for the folks who run borough government and receive complaints all the time about such places. Still, the way this was written falls somewhere in between a flight of fancy and a hoax. Letting you know concurrent with warning the user.]/]/] 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:I did see the "flaming arrow" thing, which I figured was just someone posting wild rumors. Looking at the fox edits it is much more apparent that it is deliberate vandalism, possibly straying into BLP territory, so I've revdeleted those edits. When I became an arb I nuked my watchlist, except for Alaska stuff and ArbCom stuff. Nice, cut and dried vandal fighting is kind a nice break from the complicated angry disputes that come to the committee. ] (]) 06:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

== Checkuser ==

How can I submit a checkuser request for my own username? --] (]) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:Checkuser is a tool that is never used without a compelling reason, and I can't imagine any reason you could give for wanting to do that that would convince anyone to run a check. Presumably you already know where you are and what kind of computer and software you are using. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== ArbCom case ==

You need to move your comment - use a section heading similar to those used by Guy Macon or EatsShootsAndLeave. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:Beeblebrox is actually an arbitrator {{smiley}} --''']]]''' 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
::And I'm actually an idiot. Sorry about that. And me an ex-Clerk! Double trouting! ] (]) 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ha. Lols for the day. ]&nbsp;]⁄] 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
::::It's ok, I'm as surprised as anyone that I'm an arb. ] (]) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

==Administrator hopefuls==
Hey Beeblebrox, in a follow-up to the last time I ended up leaving a message on your talk page, I had found the page revolving around ] where I had to modify the part on my page so that it can be listed there. When it was done, my name was added to the "User with at least 30 edits in the last two months" section which is reserved for the active members. What's the link for those who are on that list to end up filling out the application information to become administrators like you? ] (]) 7:27, January 8 2014 (UTC)
:If I understand your question correctly, you are looking for ]. It's not so much an application as it is a week-long test of your knowledge of WP policies coupled with a thorough review of your history here, especially your interactions with other users. The days when being and admin was "no big deal" are well and truly gone and the process now can be very discouraging of you aren't ready for it. If I were you, I would read ] and consider very carefully what your chances are of passing the process. ] (]) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
::Besides the punitive block that ] did last month as part of the RFA's "have you been blocked in the past 6 months" comments, I did have earlier blocks because some contributors have been using my IP Account as seen in my block log. Luckily, there was a contact back then where I had to notify each administrator of this. I have reverted vandalism (with the latest one involving someone tampering with the page for ]) and used edit summaries with my common edit summaries including "Adding details to history," "Adding details to plot," "Adding details to media appearance," "correcting some links," "Do you have proof of the information I just removed," "creating new page," and "making some additions/corrections." With help from ], I had to help keep some anonymous contributors from claiming that '']'' was made by ] (which the show I just mentioned is not of their creation). I have also been working on updating the episode guide for the episodes of '']'' that I have seen on YouTube even though ] removed the character sections that were there way before he removed them. Did I leave anything out in the descriptions for ]? If so, please let me know. ] (]) 8:50, January 8 2013 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure you are understanding what I have tried to communicate. An RFA is a sort of "torture test" where you will be sharply criticized by other users. They will be looking for a candidate who has some experience with admin-related processes such as ] or ]. They will be looking for solid knowledge of the ] and the various ways that articles come to be deleted, as well as thorough knowledge of the ] and an understanding of how it is enforced. They will be looking for a user who is able to communicate clearly and responds sensibly when their actions are challenged. You will be asked a dozen or more questions and even one wrong answer can can ruin your chances. It's quite an ordeal to go through, and if you do succeed that's when the real difficulties begin. It is not a process to be entered into lightly, and if you aren't thoroughly prepared for it you will almost certainly fail. Again, I would suggest you read ] and consider whether this is really something you think you would succeed at right now. ] (]) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

== Arbitrator workshop proposal ==

The drafting arbitrator of the ] has placed elements of the proposed decision on the ]. Your comments are welcome. --''']]]''' 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

== I would like to lodge a complaint against Mrm7171 ==

Mrm7171 on the health psychology talk page called me a "troll." I would like him to stop. ] (]) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He also called me a troll in a comment he made when editing the health psychology page. ] (]) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Iss246 has posted on his 'talk page' masses of false, derogatory postings. He has called me a troll on his talk page, and made false judgements about my qualifications. He wrote this.."You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. He also called me stupid etc etc on his talk page ] under the heading '''Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page''' from September 2013.
For the record, although it matters none, I hold a Doctorate in Psychology and am certainly not a troll. I have asked him to delete these extremely defamatory statements, in the past, but he refused, even after I corrected him and provided evidence to the contrary. Currently iss246 refuses to engage in discussion but rather post information that is based on a 1986 reference I have read today, that does not support his statements. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:I am not at all sure why this has been brought to my talk page, but I will provide some advice for the both of you:

:*Stop calling each other names, including "troll" or engaging in other personal attacks. That is never the way to solve a dispute, be it on or off wiki.
:*Consider pursuing some form of ]
:*Just to re-iterate, claiming any sort of real-life credential is irrelevant as we rely on reliable sources, not personal expertise.
:*Consider whether this is really worth arguing over or if it might just be time for both of you to ].

:hope this helps. ] (]) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

---For the record, I did not call Mrm7171 a troll. But four times on the health psychology page in a matter of days, he called me a troll. ] (]) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Of course you did iss246, on your ] under the heading '''Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page''' from September 2013. It is still there? The fact that I have a Doctorate in psychology is 'totally irrelevant.' I agree. And no iss246, I am not a troll. I feel embarrassed that you posted this on a busy administrators page also. So apologies to Beeblebrox. My exact words yesterday were, "let's stop the personal attacks and focus on editing." So fully agreed Beeblebrox.] (]) 00:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the ]. --''']]]''' 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

== New proposals at ] ==

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at ] since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. ] (]) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Jackmcbarn@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2014/Mass_message_recipients&oldid=590903159 -->

== ] closed ==


] '''Oversight changes'''
An arbitration case regarding {{noping|Nightscream}} has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
:] {{hlist|class=inline
{{quotation|1=<nowiki></nowiki>
|]
For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, {{noping|Nightscream}}'s administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new ].
|]
|]
|]
|]
}} }}
:] ]


</div>
For the Arbitration Committee, ''']]]''' 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
</div>

: ]

== CheckUser request ==

Good morrning,

I'm not sure, if this is actually the right place for my request, but since CheckUser access is necessary to answer my question, and you apparently have just that, I suppose I could do worse than to try my luck here.

The situation is the following: For several years I have edited mass murder-related articles on Misplaced Pages, and created amongst others the ]. On June 20, 2012 a user named KnaveSmig posted at my ], offering me to download an Excel-file supposedly containing his own compilation of mass murderers, as well as 16 hours of songs related to the subject. At the time I was unsure how to deal with this, on the one hand being curious about the possibly salvageable information, on the other hand being suspicious about downloading unrequested material from an unknown person and risking an infection of my computer with malware. In the end my suspicious side prevailed and I ignored the files, though contemplated for a while to write a reply to explain myself. Considering the matter not that important I delayed writing said reply until I came to the conclusion that too much time had passed to invest any effort in something the addressed person may not even read, after all KnaveSmig left no indication that he ever came back to Misplaced Pages.

Then the Sandy Hook shooting happened, and when information was published in the media that Adam Lanza had a pronounced interest in mass murder and created a spreadsheet listing historic mass murderers I already had a bad feeling in my guts. But then, during my studies of mass murders I have come across several people who have compiled similar lists, and there are probably a lot of others who do the same in less public places than the internet, so I composed myself thinking that this was just a coincidence, and there's probably no connection between KnaveSmig and Adam Lanza. Then information surfaced that Lanza had a Misplaced Pages account and edited several articles a couple of years earlier under a different name. I waited for the media to announce that Lanza had also used the alias KnaveSmig, but this never happened, and so I assumed my suspicions were probably unfounded.

It remained that way, until recent reports stated that Lanza had also posted at a forum dedicated to the Columbine massacre around the same time he had left the note on my talk page. The pseudonym he used there was Smiggles. And since the writing style of Smiggles is comparable to KnaveSmig's my suspicions are revived that the two may be the same person.

So, to cut a long story short, would it be possible for you to check if KnaveSmig's IP address is located in Connecticut, maybe even the Newtown area, and thus confirm or refute my suspicion that I have been contacted by Adam Lanza a mere six months before the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? This question is haunting me for about a year now, and I'd really like to get some closure on that one. Thank you. (] (]) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

:So, I have kind of a good news/bad news reply here. We'll start with the bad: I won't be running that check and I doubt anyone else would either. I do have CU access, but I only took in case I need during my term as an arb and I am not an active user of it. Being curious about something, even something spooky like this, is almost certainly not going to be accepted as a valid reason for doing such a search.

:The good news is that despite all that I am pretty sure this was not him. If you search news reports about this you can find some where they dropped clues about specific edits, and if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you can figure out the username they are referring to, and this isn't it. The account that was ''suspected'' of being him edited articles about mass shootings, the account you mention never did. ] (]) 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Well, I suspected that my request may not go through, but I had to try anyway. The problem is, I already know Lanza's user name here on Misplaced Pages, but he used that in 2009/10 only a couple of times, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, if he forgot his password and created a second account later on for the single purpose of engaging in a conversation with me. I remember that back in June 2012 I've performed a quick Google search for the name KnaveSmig to find out if he is trustworthy, or just some kind of a prankster, but the search yielded nothing besides his posts on my talk page. Even then I wondered what Smig may stand for, and thinking that it's merely an abbreviated form of Smiggles seems just too plausible. Considering what I know about KnaveSmig and Lanza I think there's a reasonable chance that they are the same person, but I suppose I will never know for sure. Anyway, thank you for your time. (] (]) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC))


==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] 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. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|CrazyAces489}} There appear to be several problems here.
:*The DRV you filed does not seem to have been done properly and it looks like as a result a bot simply removed it.

:*You seem to misunderstand the purpose of DRV as well. It is only for reviewing the administrative decision to delete an article. You should only open one if you believe I misinterpreted the consensus at ].


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:*You are also claiming you started a new article from scratch, which is not actually the truth since I userfied the article for you when you asked me to .
* 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'''
:So, you've got a technical problem, a policy problem, and a factual error there. If you believe the draft article is ready to be returned to article space you can just execute a ] to return it, DRV is not the proper venue for pursuing that option. ] (]) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (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'''
:::I want to put it back into article space, but I don't want it to be speedily deleted. So I thought that deletion review would have been the best thing to do. Any ideas? ] (]) 13:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
::::It looks like you have made significant enough changes to it that it would not be speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article, and I don't think it would qualify for any of the other ] either. ] (]) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
{{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 ] ==
:::Any help in moving the page as well as cleaning up the page would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:22, 23 January 2014 (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)
== Request for oversight ==


Can I get the 9 most recent revisions on my talk page deleted. The block has been lifted so there's no reason for it to be there. ] (]) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) :Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 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. ] (] · ]) 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. ==
:Normally a ] would be handled off-wiki, but in this case I think we can deal with it here since this is absolutely not something that qualifies for suppression, or even ]. These are tools used to remove serious problems, not just edits you don't happen to like. You are of course free to just remove the content from your talk page, which it looks like you have already done. ] (]) 00:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


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


:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=592190539&oldid=592184696
::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)
I'm disappointed.


== Potential topic ban violation ==
I voted for you, and I'm sure I've supported you in the past.


Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
That comment is disgraceful. There are bigger things than being seen to conform. I used to think you knew that. Shame on you - I guess it's true what they say about power - if only it was real power, eh?


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>
You're not the first person I've seen this happen to, but I so hoped for better from you.
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>
Ah, well...Disappointed. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 17:37, 24 January 2014 (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)
:I don't see anything that in that comment that has to do with "being seen to conform." This is about the right way and the wrong way to approach such an issue when you object to it. Unilaterally modifying an office action with absolutely no prior discussion is pretty much guaranteed to cause a dramafest, and I know Kww knew that when he did this. So I guess we are both feeling kind of the same way, except I am disappointed in Kww and not myself.
::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 ] ==
:There are over four million articles on WP, and only ''five'' that are subject to office actions. For those five articles, and only those five, nobody is supposed to ever modify those actions without the express permission of WMF staff. Nobody. I do not and have not supported the use of PC2 anywhere, and it may be that there is reason to ask the foundation not to use it even in an office action, but going ahead and doing it and ''then'' starting a discussion is exactly the wrong way to go about it. I
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> –] (]]) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC notice ==
:'Id like to see this end peacefully with nobody's head on the chopping block and I do think that is still possible despite the fact that he deliberately ignored a bright-line rule with the full awareness that he was doing so. ] (]) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for replying. The way to avoid any "heads on chopping blocks" would, it seems to me, then, to have been just to decline the case request. Any tit-for-tat motion inspired by Phillippe's improper reaction and foot stamping, especially given the history making it look like revenge, is unnecessary and divisive. If you don't like what Kww did, then leave him a note on his bloody talk page.
::Anyway, as I say, thanks for the reply - we'll probably just have to differ on this - reasonable people can do that I guess. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::I think if, as some suggested, the circumstances had been just a little bit different this all might have gone down differently. Like if there was an edit war going on or something and he stepped in and temporarily upped the protection to stop it I doubt anyone would have cared. Coming out of nowhere and just doing it without discussion and without any urgent reason to do so is what made this look like deliberate provocation. And it worked all too well. That is the crux of this as far as I am concerned, and the reason I support the admonishment. ] (]) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: Ok - as I say, we differ. Even given the "way it went down", while you guys are doing admonishments, one of those issued to Phillippe for the chilling effect and near WP:NLT of saying he'd "consulted WMF legal" about Kww's actions, his overall "Lèse-majesté" approach, and, fuck it, just overbearing non-collegial, threatening response in implying he'd summarily desysop but would rather arbcom did it for him, then openly suggesting Brad organised just that, might just seem a wee bit more balanced when hindsight comes to look at all this. I realise he subsequently climbed down from part of that podium in the face of reaction, but still... Anyway, I've taken up enough of this page, so I'll leave it there - thanks again for the discussion and responsiveness. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 15:04, 25 January 2014 (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

23

0

23




TfD

0

0

0

0

0




MfD

0

0

0

0

0




FfD

0

0

8

0

8




RfD

0

0

41

0

41




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)