This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 7 January 2025 (→Deletion review for Guite people: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:39, 7 January 2025 by LaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs) (→Deletion review for Guite people: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
| 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 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 60 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 16 requested closures
- 38 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. Beeblebrox 08:35, 6 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)
- Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox 19:45, 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)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
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)
- Good catch, there was a
- It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be currently blocked? Beeblebrox 22:07, 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)
- 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)
- I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. Beeblebrox 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll give it a shot I suppose. Beeblebrox 20:46, 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)
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)
- 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)
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)