This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 4 March 2011 (→The dilemma you pose to content editors: hmm...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:34, 4 March 2011 by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) (→The dilemma you pose to content editors: hmm...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to my talk page
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.
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.
Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.
 | Want to tell me what you think of me as an administrator? Go right ahead! Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Beeblebrox is live and any and all feedback is appreciated. |
Pending changes
Hi.
I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. WP:PCPP does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the straw poll, which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best, Chzz ►
- Funny you should mention that, as I have just been discussing re-opening discussion so that admins have some clear guidance on if we are supposed to be using it or not. There is no clear statement anywhere that I have been able to find that says to either keep using it or to stop. Currently when protecting a page an admin sees this message "The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. No page in the Misplaced Pages namespace should be protected under pending changes except those for testing." I think it is time to resolve this issue, but somebody needs to get the ball rolling and draft an RFC or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah; I did skim-read that discussion, but didn't take in that you'd written there. This certainly does need some clarification. Chzz ► 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 fire away. Already added to WP:CENT, and I have asked for a sitenotice . Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That looks good, yep; I will follow it with interest, and hope to join in. Thanks. Chzz ► 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 fire away. Already added to WP:CENT, and I have asked for a sitenotice . Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah; I did skim-read that discussion, but didn't take in that you'd written there. This certainly does need some clarification. Chzz ► 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and I'm helping the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made to Risker, and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Steven, thanks for taking the time to drop a line here. Reading your post to Risker is actually kind of a relief, nobody seemed to sure what the "official" stance on this was, and apparently its pretty much the same as everyone else. That stance being summed as "Are we supposed to be doing this or not? Somebody tell me please." I don't know how the community will feel about the "jury" idea, but its worth running up the flagpole. We'd want to be sure there were non-admin users involved if that is done. If hope you don't mind, I'm going to add a pointer to your statement at Risker's page to the RFC, it may help us cut through some grey areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad it's helpful! Anyway, yeah it's totally fine to add a pointer to the thread on Risker's talk page, though I'll make a similar statement on the RfC about what the Foundation has been doing and what we're looking to get out of the discussion so that her talk page doesn't become a lengthy debate zone. Steven Walling at work 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Mary's Spiritual College and Centre
Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied.
Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever!
It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You nominated it as patent nonsense and blatant vandalism. I can understand what it says and it is not vulgar or obviously deliberately disruptive. It might be lies, it might not be notable, but I don't see how it was either of the things you nominated it as. It is now nominated via WP:PROD which is much more flexible than the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Palooka?
Sorry Beeblebrox, but is this (obviously deliberate) misspelling intended as an insult to Wiktionary? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's fighting words! BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me... Drmies (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, I do that a lot, usually spotting it right after pressing enter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Pike Clinton Ross
I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks John Milito (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed there is, I've userfied the article for you at User:John Milito/Pike Clinton Ross. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
RevDel
Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. Rami R 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You missed some! :-)
Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! Ashanda (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I was actually going just off of diffs posted at ANI, I didn't think to check the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well I figured a couple of diffs would be sufficient for people to get the gist, didn't want to bore everyone with a tl;dr post! You might want to look at 178.103.29.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think that's the last of them... for now anyway. Ashanda (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Collapse of Anti-Christian violence in India discussion
Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Airdrie Astronomical Association
Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page Airdrie Astronomical Association and redirect it to the same page, Airdrie Public Observatory? —innotata 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:Sept. 11th
I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about WP:FORUM and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. Soxwon (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Contradicting FORUM is absolutely not a listed exception to the edit warring policy. regardless of the ArbCom sanctions, I could easily block the both of you right now for plain old edit warring if I was so inclined, but I'd rather try to persuade the both of you to just cut it out. Telling him to piss off in an edit summary was really unhelpful as well, as you can see it has only served to inflame the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a talk page. My comments are entitled to be there. I do not have to put up with distasteful editors telling me to 'piss off' and calling my comments lunatic. I especially do not have to be told what to do by such editors. The editor Soxwon has every right to disagree with my point of view but does not have the right to remove my comments on a talk page. I request my comments be reinserted. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm disinclined to take a side in this edit war, I have endeavored to maintain a position of neutrality around this page in order that I not become an involved administrator and therefore unable to use my administrative tools or impose sanctions. However I do not wish to simply ignore your concerns so I believe I will write up a report at WP:ANI in order to solicit outside opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a talk page. My comments are entitled to be there. I do not have to put up with distasteful editors telling me to 'piss off' and calling my comments lunatic. I especially do not have to be told what to do by such editors. The editor Soxwon has every right to disagree with my point of view but does not have the right to remove my comments on a talk page. I request my comments be reinserted. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've reinstated my comments. Not because I am edit warring but simply becuase this is a talk page page and my comments should not be censored by peopel wth an obvious political bias. Editors should not be allowed to censor talk pages. Vexorg (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I really, really wish you hadn't done that right after I informed you that it is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've reinstated my comments. Not because I am edit warring but simply becuase this is a talk page page and my comments should not be censored by peopel wth an obvious political bias. Editors should not be allowed to censor talk pages. Vexorg (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Point of order: I'm only technically involved, if even that. I reverted once and, to be fair, Vexorg's statements had no place there; he was basically just bitching about the article as a whole. Talk pages aren't meant for that unless he's also offering some sort of solution. But I think you can see what I mean. HalfShadow 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- You were involved in the edit war so I have to inform you of the ANI discussion or I get yelled at. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Margins
I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD
AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. Feedback 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I made sure to note in my closing statement that my decision was not based on head counting. I've just re-red the debate and come to the same conclusion as last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, step 1
Done. Feedback 05:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- (posting this here as it is somewhat off the topic of the DRV) You see, consensus is a subtle thing sometimes. It's hard to describe exactly how a determination is made. It starts with approaching the discussion as an uninvolved party who doesn't care if the article is deleted or not. I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focussing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not. What I almost never do is actually look at the article itself, because then I may form my own opinion and no longer be able to make an impartial decision. If I don't feel like there was a consensus reached I will close it as "no consensus" or relist it for another week. I'm not sure how to define it any more concretely than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I understand that part, but the article has no place on an encyclopedia, and anyone who views it will see it. Reading people saying "the article looks good now" or "there are references now" isn't the same as seeing that the article is 100% trivia and the references do not establish notability. A consensus is achieved from the strongest argument... Without being familiar with what they're talking about, how do you evaluate what the strongest argument is and what the consensus is? Feedback 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes if there is disagreement about certain issues such as the quality of a particular source then you have to go look for yourself. However an argument like "the article is 100% trivia" while possibly true, is something that can be fixed by editing. What is essential is that the closing admin not make a WP:SUPERVOTE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- What if the "closing admin" figures out the consensus he thought was obvious was flawed and decides to NOT close it? Feedback 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes if there is disagreement about certain issues such as the quality of a particular source then you have to go look for yourself. However an argument like "the article is 100% trivia" while possibly true, is something that can be fixed by editing. What is essential is that the closing admin not make a WP:SUPERVOTE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I understand that part, but the article has no place on an encyclopedia, and anyone who views it will see it. Reading people saying "the article looks good now" or "there are references now" isn't the same as seeing that the article is 100% trivia and the references do not establish notability. A consensus is achieved from the strongest argument... Without being familiar with what they're talking about, how do you evaluate what the strongest argument is and what the consensus is? Feedback 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- (posting this here as it is somewhat off the topic of the DRV) You see, consensus is a subtle thing sometimes. It's hard to describe exactly how a determination is made. It starts with approaching the discussion as an uninvolved party who doesn't care if the article is deleted or not. I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focussing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not. What I almost never do is actually look at the article itself, because then I may form my own opinion and no longer be able to make an impartial decision. If I don't feel like there was a consensus reached I will close it as "no consensus" or relist it for another week. I'm not sure how to define it any more concretely than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, step 1
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really didn't like seeing users trying to beat you up over the thing with Gobbles, which I thought was completely unfair and was mischaracterized. I'm glad it didn't torpedo your RFA. Congratulations, and welcome to the janitorial corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Musical theatre
Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR on the article talk page.
While this seems to be a clear WP:PREFER case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted.
I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the WP:OWN problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Beeblebrox. Since your archiving of the Musical theatre talk page today, Ronz has made voluminous contributions to that page under numerous headings, but they are vague, difficult to understand, and scattered all over the place. I have asked, on the talk page, for her/him to make a much more concise list of what he/she feels are the most important items to work on, so we can address or discuss them (hopefully in one place instead of scattered all over the talk page). Would you kindly take a look at the talk page there and try to help us find a way forward? Thanks for any assistance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How much longer should this go on before it's worth requesting protection again? --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would also welcome your advice and/or intervention. Note that I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, I'd welcome your input in the ANI thread as a matter of some urgency. There has been what was, to me at least, an unexpected development. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
User forging your name to RFPP
You should be made aware of Pplease (talk · contribs) Pplasse (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also uses 75.1.30.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and who, after an administrator fully-protected Jason Plummer (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you: edit 1, edit 2. Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like another admin is already on the case, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I changed the username above. I keep typoing his username; it's actually Pplasse. Sorry about that. --Closeapple (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The dilemma you pose to content editors
Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that.
This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Misplaced Pages and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Misplaced Pages, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) First, remember WP:AGF - your tirade above is so non-AGF, it's not funny - if I was Beeblebrox, I wouldn't reply to such filth. Second, remember that WP:EW and WP:3RR are different - any admin can block you after fewer than 3 reverts. On certain high-profile articles for example, WP:1RR is pretty common. If an admin says that due to high traffic, a specific article is temporarily on 1RR - or if the article is already part a topic of curretn 1RR restriction, then guess what; its restricted. If any editor - longstanding or not - decides to play stupid and ignore that basic fact, well ... you already know what happens. That's the editor's fault, not the admins. If you disagree with the restrictions, you contact the admin (and possibly WP:ANI) BEFORE testing the waters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Filth. Did you say filth? Did you? Filth... filth... isn't that what they said about the Jews? You say you can block after just 1 RR! Staggering power! You say I don't assume good faith! With Beeblebrox I was most certainty assuming good faith and anticipating a sane and happy outcome. With your outburst, I am most certainly not assuming good faith. How could anyone possibly assume that after your "tirade" (but that's the term you used, isn't it?) You, yourself, are currently a key problematic administrator on Misplaced Pages, hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project. What space is there now for any content editor on Misplaced Pages? What has happening to Misplaced Pages? Is this real or just a nightmare that can be awakened from? Who are you to do this stuff BWilkins? Where is your track record of genuine contributions to Misplaced Pages? If you have none, how did it come about that we made you an "administrator"? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)