User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 43
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Just Step Sideways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Border Pairs Method
Many years ago (sometime around 2012) you removed my post entitled BORDER PAIRS METHOD. You said I had too few quotes or references. In the mean time this method did get some respectible references: peer rewiwed articles, chapters in scientific books, invited talks (at IBM Research) and more:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324216126_A_one_step_method_to_solving_brain_contradiction
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263656317_Advances_in_Machine_Learning_Research
http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=81316
--Bojan PLOJ (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- So I didn't just delete it on a whim, there was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border pairs method which I closed. My only part in this was interpreting the consensus of that discussion and taking appropriate action. If you think you have what is needed to craft a new article that has overcome the issues identified in that discussion you are free to just go ahead and do so, or to create a draft article that others can review before it goes ito article space. I would also note that the discussion had several suggestions to add this material to a existing article instead of having a stand-alone article, you may want to consider that, and use a redirect page to help users find it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Border Pairs Method is now ready. Please look at it. What now? --Bojan PLOJ (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, my involvement here was purely administrative in nature, I did not and do not have a personal opinion on the matter. You can either submit the draft to articles for creation for review or just move it yourself if you'd rather do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe unfairly IP banned on mobile for "disruptive editing" by wikipedia User:Materialscientist. Blocked from account creation so I cannot appeal
Hi,
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I need an account to appeal a temporary IP ban, and I am blocked from making one, so I have no idea what to do. I am only seeking a resolution to my issue. Again, sorry if this is the wrong place. I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out where to go and I only ever edit wikipedia to clean up a small editing issue or typo. The closest I come to "disruptive editing" that I can think of is adding an oxford common to an sentence that needed one for clarity...
I was blocked from all editing privileges, am not allowed to make an account (and hence cannot appeal my block or even look at the offending edit). The block parameters say:
- editing (sitewide)
- anon. only
- account creation disabled
The fact that anon only is blocked, and I am only blocked for 6 months, yet I cannot make an account leads me to believe there is an abusive reason why these parameters were chosen by wikipedia admin Materialscientist
Sorry if this is the wrong place to file a complaint. I cannot figure out where else to put this. Wikipedia does not make the appeals process or its internal administration structure very transparent, in my opinion.
I expect an answer from someone so I do not need to escalate. As I know I have not "vanadalized" a wikipedia page since I was a teenager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gage1330 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- <tps>If it is just your IP that is blocked, then in all likelihood your IP was in a range that has been used by someone to abuse the encyclopedia. That you were able to create an account indicates that your present IP isn't included in that range. It's nothing to do with you, and it's not abusive, except that whoever was abusing the IP range is to blame, not the people who dealt with it. Go ahead and keep using the account, that's the solution to the problem. It's one of the unfortunate side effects of the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and it is one argument for editing from an account, as accounts are mostly exempt. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You are right to suspect this is not the way to appeal a block. How you picked my talk page out of all the possible places to post this is a bit vague as well. And I can't give you any guidance as to why you were blocked as you have not said what IP you were using when you were blocked. I'm assuming from your post you did not have an account Technically this very post constitutes block evasion, but maybe we can get past that if you provide further information about your block. It is possible that you were not the intended target, but withut more information I really can't do anything about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- My interpretation is that the IP changed or they are using a different network/device for this account, since you say you were blocked on mobile. However, the best practice is to ask for unblocking from the IP, if you are still on it, or to approach the editor who made the block from this account, recognizing that if you were the cause of the IP block and are not telling us the whole truth, it will be blocked. Proposing that the IP block was abusive isn't a good look, it makes us suspicious that you might be the problem. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC).
- (edit conflict) You are right to suspect this is not the way to appeal a block. How you picked my talk page out of all the possible places to post this is a bit vague as well. And I can't give you any guidance as to why you were blocked as you have not said what IP you were using when you were blocked. I'm assuming from your post you did not have an account Technically this very post constitutes block evasion, but maybe we can get past that if you provide further information about your block. It is possible that you were not the intended target, but withut more information I really can't do anything about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Free Vandalism on wikipedia
Hello Sir Madam, Greetings!
I noticed that "User: Joanrivers" only created an account just to attack wikipedia pages. His first edit was to nominate this page for deletion. He even added (2nd nomination) and went ahead to vandalize the page removing some references and also nominated another pages for deletion.
(Please see the attached Screenshot https://ibb.co/vYRcnvH )
This is quite sad and discouraging for me at this time of COVID-19 crisis. Is this how the English wikipedia platform works?
Thanks & Regards Shruti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish Verma 9891 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting how many random people ar coming to my talk page with their issues lately. May I ask hat prompted you to come here? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is odd. You know, I've noticed that too. You seem to get more of these out-of-the-blue requests than any other admin around. Perhaps they're under the assumption that, as the president of the galaxy, you must be the one to ask, or maybe they just arrived by chance using improbability drive. Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I like both those theories, but it's actually probably something to do with being on arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is odd. You know, I've noticed that too. You seem to get more of these out-of-the-blue requests than any other admin around. Perhaps they're under the assumption that, as the president of the galaxy, you must be the one to ask, or maybe they just arrived by chance using improbability drive. Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Miscellaneous
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
Orphaned non-free image File:UAFsofos.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:UAFsofos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
PeioR
You are a member of the Arbitration Committee, right? I'm a ptwiki editor (and enwiki editor too). We are investigating the illicit use of multiple accounts by the user PeioR. Could you tell me if there was any account verification request in enwiki involving PeioR? Best regards. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by "account verification request". Are you maybe looking for WP:SPI? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I saw, no registry. I thank you. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Beeblebrox, I asked Wagner to research any possible suspicion of socks. In the last few days, I checked the articles with an apology to pedophilia created by the account and noted the existence of other accounts. They share the same editorial pattern, editing period and the same preference areas.
Because of that, I was looking for any mention of sock present in wikis. However, I believe it's impossible since no account edited on the same project as the other and, consequently, "hiding" any suspicions of socks. Despite all this, the accounts involved have been inactive for five years, there is nothing that checkuser can do. Tks. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 00:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet IPs removing green precipitation
I've blocked 66.97.180.165 as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#rangeblock needed. But I don't do rangeblocks. Can you check and see if there is a possible range to block. See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Sockpuppet IPs removing green precipitation. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Death of paid WP editor.
Not sure what the process is here so please be kind. Basically it has come to my attention that a long term WP editor has died, additionally this person was a paid content editor who regularly used references to his own misleading published material, books or blogs. I can supply proof of both. The content in which this person edited needs to be cleaned up. What is the next step? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.29.30.225 (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, I'm on it. Discussing over email with IP and will leave more info on Admin noticeboards when I have more info Ed6767 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Got banned unfairly by a bot
Hi
Sorry if I have made any sort of grammatical error writing this message as English isn't my first language, and thank you for your understanding. My issue is that I'm charged with a temporary IP ban by a bot unfairly of "Vandalism", as the result, can not make edits in Turkish wiki and even can't edit my user page on mobile. Didn't even do anything, it even hasn't been a day since I have created this account. I have no idea what to do. I need a resolution to my issue. The only website language I can write in is English. Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter.
I'm blocked of everything. Can not even make a new account and cannot appeal my block in Turkish website.
Nutshell: I think I'm mistakenly/unfairly IP banned on mobile for alleged "Vandalism" by a wikipedia bot, can not edit/create pages in Turkish Memredi (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Each project runs itself. Nobody on this project can do anything about what goes on on the Turkish Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
Need some sort of admin arbitration on Wiki Loves Pride
I have tried to open a discussion and have tried to write a disclaimer that Wiki Loves Pride is merely part of the Wiki Loves X. This is because the general populace may confuse the campaign for neutral publication of articles for an active promotion of LGBT issues in controversial areas when regarding religious and other political entities. Two users, who are not admins, have openly mocked me on the talk page, have claimed that Wikipedia's official police is to support LGBT advocacy groups other religious organizations, and have reverted my attempts to add a disclaimer. Admins need to give a position on this.Somua35 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- This does not sound like an administrative matter to me, let alone a matter for the arbitration committee, but in any event my talk page is not the correct forum for any such discussion. WP:DR has information on how to pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
IP-hopping vandal
Hello, it seems like the weatherbox coloring vandal that used 24.68.2.110 continues to disrupt Wikipedia with other random IP addresses. Today, I reverted dozens of edits by 64.114.18.188 (likely a mail server) who changed the green precipitation color on various weatherboxes to all blue. The user seems to think the use of green precipitation "is an eyesore", which does not make sense even in the slightest as they believe that an unsightly solid wall of blue is an improvement. I also caught them using 199.60.109.110 (Greater Victoria Library) earlier this month as they made the same exact sort of edits to other city weatherboxes, which eventually got blocked for a year for block evasion. It occurs to me no matter how many blocks that this user receives, they will continue to rotate IP addresses and disrupt Wikipedia with these same sort of non-sensical coloring changes. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- This guy is so very lame. I don't know how anyone could find this a good use of their time as they just get blocked every time and their edits reverted. I'm kind of busy this week but I blocked the IP at least. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I created a LTA case for this guy. Any additional information that you might find or other suspected IPs should be added here. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd been considering doing the same, we need more eyes on this stupidity. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I created a LTA case for this guy. Any additional information that you might find or other suspected IPs should be added here. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Was there any reason to delete the adjective redirect besides the username of the creator (which isn't a proper reason in that case, as he, while he did create a lot of unhelpful redirects, did also create some useful ones)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you seem to know at least part of the story already. This was what would later be made into it's own criterion, the now-deprecated criterion X1. We had over 50,000 potentially problematic redirects to deal with, it literally took years to clean up this mess. It required greater-than-usual levels of admin discretion to even get it done in that time frame, and so many redirects that might otherwise have gone to RFD were speedy deleted.
- "Linguistical" is not a real word in English. My spellchecker is lighting it up right now in this edit window as a typo. It's a fairly typical example of Neelix making up all possible wrong versions of a word and creating a redirect for it, which is actually harmful as persons who don't know it isn't a real word may link it in article space and get a blue link, and assume they've got it right. In fact, there is one incoming link from article space, where someone did just that. I don't see any problem with having deleted it at that time and in those circumstances. If you look here you may get some sense of what it was like to work on this issue. I assume that answers your question? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, this is a real word and I don't see any problem with such a redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we need to clarify what it is you are asking. Are you wishing to challenge the deletion, or are you just planning to recreate the redirect? Those are two entirely different questions when it comes to these specific deletions. If you wanted to recreate the page, as a user in good standing you are perfectly free to do so without discussing it as it is presumed you are using good judgement, whereas at that time we had a consensus Neelix was not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I just asked for the rationale of the deletion; I've recreated the redirect now. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we need to clarify what it is you are asking. Are you wishing to challenge the deletion, or are you just planning to recreate the redirect? Those are two entirely different questions when it comes to these specific deletions. If you wanted to recreate the page, as a user in good standing you are perfectly free to do so without discussing it as it is presumed you are using good judgement, whereas at that time we had a consensus Neelix was not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, this is a real word and I don't see any problem with such a redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Boris Malagurski
Hi Beeblebrox, sorry for bothering you. I found you on a list of the arbitration Committee members. There is an ongoing dispute here regarding tags. It seems that non of us has been experienced enough to deal with the situation. Could you please help with your experience. Thank you. --IndexAccount (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's no bother, but generally arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. I would suggest posting at WP:DRN if discussion on the talk page isn't helping. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. --IndexAccount (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
Arbitration Request RE: Edit War
Hello,
I'm not sure the procedure to follow to contact someone regarding a combative editor who is trying to bait an edit war on a BLP page for Renzo Gracie. I apologize in advance if this isn't the right place to go first - I'm not deep into editing in Wikipedia and just volunteer my time to help improve the Wiki where I can in my areas of expertise. I have a dispute with a user who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced claims that Renzo Gracie is a Nazi sympathizer. I don't want to keep reverting his edits (and my understanding is that would be against WP policy anyways, falling under edit war), so I would appreciate any assistance you can provide regarding this matter. I also want to note that I have no particular conflict of interest regarding this topic, you can check my location if you are curious. I'm very far from the subject of the article.
Warm regards, --BasicsOnly (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, arbitration is supposed to be the last step in dispute resolution,not the first. WP:DR is a very comprehensive guide to the various other options available. Thank You for asking instead of edit warring. We need more of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar The Arbs's Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for considering others. — Ched (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC) |
- Just in case ...
those "thanks" clicks pile up so fast you can't read them all. Thank you for this - nice to know someone is taking community desires into consideration. Kudos to you. — Ched (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In retrospect we probably shouldn't have started voting right away. We've been dealing with this by email for weeks now so it seemed almost like old news at this point and I think we may have gotten a little overzealous in wanting to just be done with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
May be you want to check this editor, he is removing a lot of content I am not familiar with too much, and the edits are marked red. 3 major edits are marked redParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the numbers next to the edits, i.e. +42, -615, etc, being red just indicates they removed rather than added content. Edits that add content are green. Both colors get brighter depending on the the size of the change, it is not in and of itself indicative of any wrongdoing. If you have concerns about a particular users' edits, the first thing you should do is try talking to them about it, either on the talk page of the affected article or on their user talk page. and it's usually considered polite to notify a fellow editor when you're opening a discussion about their edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
User:India special
Hey there, you blocked User:Indiannurseshub for Draft:Indian nurses hub per UAA, but it seems like they're back again under User:India special. They created the draft again and the content looks identical. (should I bring this up at a different noticeboard instead?) Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh. I rolled the dice and did the soft block, so they were free to do so, but usually they get the point a little bit better than that. Zapped the draft again. Hopefully they will think before doing it again. If they don't I guess WP:COIN or WP:AIV is the way to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Chris Langan
Can you please unblock Chris? He followed the instructions on the block notice to no avail. Everyone knows it's Chris. I can verify - the admins know me as well and can check that the Chris Langan IP is the same as always. Thanks, in advance. DrL (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- As noted in the block notice, OTRS is completely volunteer-driven. I can't see what he may or may not have sent them but three days is not an unusually long time for them to resolve an issue. It's not a matter of what IP he is using. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I also ask that you unblock Chris, immediately. You blocked him without any warning, solely for using his real name (which is well-known) as his username. I see that a different user had asked him last month to confirm his identity, but without linking to the relevant policy (WP:REALNAME). Thus, Chris had no warning that a block was impending. Moreover, the policy in question only says that "the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation" (my emphasis). Please unblock him while OTRS handles the issue. Tim Smith (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- The block is not a judgement on him as a person or as a Wikipedia editor, it is an entirely routine action taken to protect him from being impersonated. Most username blocks come without warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- You blocked an established user (at Wikipedia since September 2019) for using their real name (which is well-known) as their username,
- without warning them beforehand,
- without notifying them of the relevant policy beforehand,
- knowing that "three days is not an unusually long time" for them to be blocked while OTRS resolves the issue,
- when the policy in question only says "the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation" (my emphasis),
- without providing any evidence that "damaging impersonation" was occurring (or even alleging this to be the case),
- and you regard this as "routine".
- WP:BEFOREBLOCK says:
In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking
. - Was your action in accord with that policy? Tim Smith (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I've already adequately explained myself as required by WP:ADMINACCT and don't feel inclined to continue discussing this here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- You blocked an established user (at Wikipedia since September 2019) for using their real name (which is well-known) as their username,
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Autopatrolled Rights
Hello Sir.... Recently i request here, but every time it's rejected. I requested 4 times in past 18 Months, but every time my request rejected. This is not a good thing, The people who has Less Experience and Less than 30 articles they already approved for Autopatrolled Rights. But i have more than 50+ with more than 2 years experience & still my request every time disapproved. (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC))
- I will attempt to clarify my decision for you:
- 25 articles is the minimum number of articles it is suggested you have created before applying, nothing more. It is not a "level up" that users are automatically granted for crossing a certain number of article creations.
- So it follows from that the user right is granted only after at least some of your recent creations are reviewed by an admin. And as it turns out, one of your recent articles was deleted, and you agreed that it should be, which would seem to strongly suggest it should not have been written in the first place.
- Just to make sure you understand, this user right doesn't do anything for you as you edit. Its entire purpose is to lessen the backlog of new articles needing review, so having it or not having it does not actually change your editing experience at all. It's really not that big of a deal.
- You are still perfectly free to keep creating articles, as I said at your request, you seem to generally do pretty good, but there's just enough times where there is an issue that I feel that it is best for the project that your creations continue to be reviewed. And at the end of the day, it is what is best for the project that should guide our decisions. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- But more then 3 times i requested for Autopatrolled Rights in past 18 Months. Every Time it's rejected. Wikipedia policy already said the person who has created more than 25+ articles is deserving for Autopatrolled Rights.
But.... In the end... I want to say, i will request again after 3 months for Autopatrolled Rights and I will tag you for review my request, Thanks (Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 15:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC))
- Nowhere does it say "deserving" because that is not how user rights work. What the policy does say quite clearly is Administrators may decline to grant the right at their discretion, even if the numerical requirements are met, if they believe that a user's page creations could benefit from going through the new page patrol process. I am never sure what motivates anyone to be so worked up over this particular user right, I would emphasize again that it does not affect your editing experience in any way. It isn't a rank or a badge of honor, it's just a tool we use to reduce backlogs. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
Self block request
Hello, I would like my account "Stephen Lafleur" hard blocked forever. I freely declare that I also have an account "Henstepl", and I would like to be using that one from now on. Over time, I have become rather more obsessive about cleaning up old accounts, and while I cannot promise I won't return (as that would make a WP:VANISH more appropriate) it would perhaps calm me down a bit to have only one account to maintain. Thanks so much for considering, let me know at this location what your verdict will be. Stephen Lafleur (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Here to confirm that I, User:Henstepl, am also User:Stephen Lafleur, and want to only use this one account, so please block "Stephen Lafleur" if you please. Henstepl (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is kind of outside the bounds of the kind of self-requested block I usually do, but I can't see any real reason not to do it so,
Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is kind of outside the bounds of the kind of self-requested block I usually do, but I can't see any real reason not to do it so,
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Eureka
I dont mean to stir up a dispute over an old edit, but I'd feel bad if I didnt point out this edit you made back in November, restoring climate data that we all knew was false. I've been criticizing other users for adding clearly off-the-charts data from "reliable" sources, as I did here, but I dont think it should matter who is signing the edit. I'll be posting an identical message on CambridgeBay's talk page as well. This is no way dampens my positive impression of you for all the times you've helped me in the past. And I think Im just going to take a break for a while. Thanks, —Soap— 19:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
|
|
Wishing Beeblebrox a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
argh
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Regarding this edit I've messed with the code about as much as I know how to, but the new addition keeps rendering inside the previous barnstar. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The closing pipe-brace needs its own line. Only reason I figured is that the syntax highlighter (alas only available in desktop editing mode) left it black (normal text) until I popped it into its own line, upon which it turned pink (table/box code). Hopefully, hot-pink/black color blindness is not common. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Arbcom question
Hi Beeblebrox,
I sent an email to Arbcom a few days ago and haven't heard anything back. Would you be able to confirm that my message was received? Cheers, gnu57 13:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, one of us should have let you know it was received. The matter is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Five years ago you discussed the Glacier Discovery article. Just to let you know I think I've made improvements in the specific area you commented upon: details of Grandview. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Advice on Moving
Hello, I am branching out into moving pages. My first one that I look at is moving Hanson (wrestler) to Ivar (wrestler), would this move be acceptable due to consensus. I am trying to be more careful to guidelines on this. If so, could you review my page deletion for Ivar (wrestler) to make a clean move? Advice would be appreciated. HeartGlow (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like you have a consensus to move. I've deleted the redirect that was in the way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Request for unprotection
Hello,
As part of a review of salted articles, I have noticed that the article Metatata was salted in 2009 as it was a frequent site of page move vandalism. Since 10 years have passed, I would like that the protection status be removed or changed to extended confirmed protection so that I could put a redirect to Metadata in its place.
Thanks, Acebulf (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- While I'd be willing to consider lifting the protection after all this time, I feel like "metatata" would be WP:R3, in particular given that it was already previously deleted under this criterion, as well as possibly coming across as crass, juvenile humor. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's fair. I didn't know there had been a discussion about it. My concern was less about typos and more ESL from languages where there is not a distinction between t and d sounds, but I guess that Medadada or Medatada aren't things, and the first result if you type any of them is metadata anyway, so I figure it probably works itself out. Cheers, Acebulf (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Wondering
Hello B. I noticed that you followed up my post on that talk page with this message which has the sentence "I realize this sin't obvious when you register an account but it is site policy." Now I do key slip misspellings all the time but it made me wonder if that "sin't" is in the template itself. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, that was my typo. I also didn't notice you'd already spoken to them before I dropped my message, I got there via WP:UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- No worries B. I had visions of 100's of talk pages with that spelling error :-) If my browser didn't make that squiggly red line under words I've messed up there would be all manner of booboos all over the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 21:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
RAN, red, and restores
Pursuant to the discussion here, you bulk-deleted the several hundred subpages in RAN1958's userspace because they were full of drafts and copyvio. Would you have any objection to my restoring his list of redlinks? DS (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- From what I can recall upon a quick review of that discussion this was a rare case where there was a consensus to just nuke everything without going through them one-by-one. That being the case if you see some merit in restoring it I certainly don't object. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the page, because I am having difficulties with a user. Edion Petriti (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- And that user has asked me for help with this editor and page. I seeUser:Tgeorgescu gave Edion Petriti a 3RR notice 4 days ago, Edion gave Achar Sva one today. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can we contact a third, non-involved user? Maybe we could put it to vote, to either discard my edit, or leave it as it is! Edion Petriti (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've got problems with possible copyright violations by you and use of a 1946 source for a sentence starting "But recently.". See [1]. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion focused on the Gospel of Matthew editing. As for the Anti-Marcionite Prologues, you can take any action you seem fit. Edion Petriti (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've got problems with possible copyright violations by you and use of a 1946 source for a sentence starting "But recently.". See [1]. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can we contact a third, non-involved user? Maybe we could put it to vote, to either discard my edit, or leave it as it is! Edion Petriti (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled as to why this particular content dispute has landed on my talk page. I would suggest you pursue whatever form of dispute resolution seems appropriate for the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
DJ Foxx Tha Roc
There were some issues on the article below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Foxx_Tha_Roc
I have since made changes with additional information and would like to have the page reviewed for publishing. Thanks. Francinelumbala (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Was equally puzzled as to why you are asking me specifically to deal with this as in the section above, until I saw that you've been spamming requests to multiple users. Still not sure why you picked me as approving drafts to be moved to article space is not something I've ever been involved in in any real way, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk)
- This tactic must have been featured in the latest addition of "UPE Monthly" ([2] [3])-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)