Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:30, 14 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 Archive 52

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 11 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 32 sockpuppet investigations
• 15 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 83 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 33 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

−

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

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

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!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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)

Please undo

Hi, Zaphod, how are you! Sorry, but I believe this to have been a mistake and would be grateful if you'd consider undoing it. I'm still trying to establish (in dilatory mode) whether a CCI is going to be necessary for this user, who has clocked up a good number of violations of our copyright policy. Here's a further example, will blank and list in a moment.

Not sure why you thought I might not wish to be consulted about the unblock in the normal way. Had you done so, I'd have said there's no possible benefit in unblocking a user with an imperfect grasp of copyright policy, and considerable scope for harm to the project – the CCI backlog counter hasn't been updated for a while, but last time I looked was at about 78000 pages. There's just a tiny handful of people working on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a de facto part of reviewing unblock requests. (in fact, unrelated to this specific situation, I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here) , I'll do it when something is unclear to me, I don't feel I'm seeing the context, etc, but this was a fairly straightforward COPYVIO block. I don't mean to imply in any way that it was wrong or unjustified, it looks like a good block to me.

However, it appears to me that the user simply did not understand exactly how copyright works, and how seriously it is taken on Misplaced Pages. This is one of several areas where Misplaced Pages's rules and expectations are considerably stricter than most of the rest of the modern internet, so I believe if a relatively new user makes a reasonable claim that they now understand the situation, a second chance is warranted, even if they have made rather egregious errors in the past.

I think we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block, and explains clearly how they intend to do that.

While I can understand your reservations about it, imperfect grasp of copyright policy probably applies to a great many users. Some aspects of how copyright works are very straightforward, others have substantial grey area. I certainly can't claim to have a perfect understanding of it. I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around "a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work" and this user is indicating they now have at least that level of understanding. Beeblebrox 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi both, I've referred this to ANI at WP:ANI#Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, disappointing... Our policy is crystal-clear: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter". You're welcome to disagree with that of course, and welcome to try to change it if you wish, but for as long as you're an administrator you're expected to adhere to it. And if you don't like the policy, do it because it's just ordinary good manners.

I have some limited sympathy for your second-chance crusade; as you surely know, we have a useful template for just that purpose.

Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention back to that user, now CU-blocked for further socking. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: How is it not a "significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking" when a user blocked for caused by their ignorance of familiarizes themselves with , apologizes for and promises to stop ? I'm very confused. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unrelated to the Aguahrz case: Beeblebrox, you said I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here. That would be a welcome improvement. A significant amount of admins consider unblocks to be, to some extent, a reversal of the original admin's block. In my view, any legitimate unblock request will come with new information or developments, even just the passage of time and an undertaking not to repeat the conduct. It follows that considering the request is looking at a fresh situation with new considerations, not the same situation the admin before was looking at. Policy should make clear that admins don't own the unrelated situation just because the same user is involved. Clearly the question is one of degree, and unblocking just because the original block was bad is another case and likely an admin action reversal. arcticocean ■ 11:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: That's exactly the case I seem to have tried and failed to make. Nine times out of ten, I can see the reasons for a block, and don't disagree. If that all seems in order to me it seems odd that the blocking admin needs to be consulted when what is being evaluated is not the block itself, but rather the quality and sincerity of the unblock requests.

I will ask questions when when I have an actual question to ask, but I've never understood why we should be mandated to ask when we have no actual questions. The main reason that many have expressed is courtesy to the blocking admin, but that only makes sense if you are overturning their decision. With the exception of obvious errors we usually should give them a chance to explain themselves first, but it does not add up when all you are contemplating is giving the blocked user a second chance.

Unfortunately if I were to propose this right now, I anticipate a substantial percentage of users would see it as a sort of "sour grapes" proposal no matter how carefully I explain that I was contemplating it before the current ANI thread, so it will need to wait unless somebody else wants to write it up. Beeblebrox 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

RE: Deletion decision of Wednesday 13

I would like to challenge the decision to redirect Skeletons. The participation was minimal, and there was no real reasoning as to why an article subject supported by at least four reliable sources, possibly five, isn't notable. The two other participants said they didn't think that was enough, but considering that multiple independent sources discuss the album, I don't see how that's convincing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The closers job is to do their best to read a consensus. Participation was minimal, no argument there, which unfortunately often makes consensus less clear.

This was been open for three weeks, which is generally considered the maximum amount of relisting unless there are exceptional circumstances. The nominator and the one other participant besides yourself agreed on redirecting. In the five days the AFD remained open after that, neither you nor anyone else voiced any sort of objection to the idea. Redirecting in cases of marginal notability is generally considered a good alternative to deletion as it allows the subject to still be covered somewhere, just without a stand-alone article. Any content worth merging can still be pulled out of the page history.

So, I think my close was reasonable and within the bounds of admin discretion. Beeblebrox 00:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought my keep vote was sufficient, I wasn't aware that I would then have to specifically voice objections to each contrary argument. I've been trying to avoid getting argumentative as I've of late been prone to getting into protracted, repetitive arguments. I definitely do appreciate the redirect rather than a hard delete. I just fail to see what justified it in light of the article meeting GNG standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You say it merits a stand-alone article, two others did not agree. It is not the closers' job to form their own opinion, but to do their best to come to a reasonable close that respects all valid arguments made during the debate. Beeblebrox 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I was surprised by that outcome, and the other arguments made, given the demonstrated meeting of WP:V. I do appreciate the position you were in of making a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

hello

Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Granting extended-confirmed early

Hello. Regarding comments like this at PERM, my understanding based on this 2022 ARCA is that administrators are free to grant extendedconfirmed as they see fit (see discussion at PERM too). If you're nervous about them editing the relevant topic areas, you could grant it on the condition of staying away, I guess.

This isn't specifically about that request, which didn't have much chance of success, but just a general point because I know that you deal with a lot of requests on that page. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I... don't think ARCA is relevant anymore. As is seemingly being established by the committee right now here, the committee is no longer in control in any way of this user right.

That being said, I admit I'm not entirely clear what the deal is with the translation tool, but I assume the community is deliberately restricting it to those that have met the minimum requirements. Beeblebrox 02:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry. Nothing's been established at Palestine–Israel articles 5 yet because as of writing this, an outright majority has rejected those changes. As the PD talk page makes clear, the Committee never had control over the user group: it created the 500/30 restriction, the Community created the user group, then the Committee modified the restriction to match the user group because based on a literal interpretation of it, accounts without 500/30 couldn't edit in restricted areas. At Palestine–Israel, we could change the restriction to only allowing page movers to edit in it or whatever, but that wouldn't give us retroactive control over the user group.I had assumed that your reluctance to grant extended-confirmed early was over the ECR. Maybe I was wrong? For what it's worth, I think that this was a decent example of granting extended-confirmed early: trusted on other projects and not likely to cause trouble over here. I think that the Community would be happy with a globally experienced user with fluent English being allowed access to the translation tool – they can already translate with it to draft/userspace without extended-confirmed, so it's not like extended-confirmed makes a big difference there (see this, which I just created using my alternative account and can easily move into mainspace). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree, but current practice is reflected in the notice at the top of both the confirmed and extended confirmed PERM pages: "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied." That has been the general understanding for some time. If there's any sort of exception for users that want to use the translation tool,I feel that should be made much more clear. Beeblebrox 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)