User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 15

User: jano_rajmond unblock
Thank you very much for unblocking me. YOU really deserve the barnstar for the admin who listens! I knew there had to be someone who would understand my situation. I am truly grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jano rajmond (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and welcome back! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.
Thanks for blocking the sockpupppets here. It was a real cat and mouse game trying to revert their edits. Pep per mint   Chi lls   —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
 * The question now is not if they will come back but when, and if they will keep their misdirected anger leveled at the same users, or if you and I will be the new targets. Ahh, the exciting world of troll-fighting.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Self Block
Beelbebrox, following on from I would like to request a 1 year self-block. The current ArbCom proceedings I'm involved with probably constitute a "cloud" so I have also emailed ArbCom with a request that I be granted this request, and as I told them, I'm not trying to withdraw from the process - I'm signed up to whatever happens next. I just want the block because WP is taking up too much of my personal time to the detriment of my family. If you are able to do this now, please consider this confirmation that it's OK to apply at any time. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you surmised, while you are involved in an ArbCom case which may result in sanctions, I would indeed consider you "under a cloud." It doesn't get much more cloudy than an ArbCom proceeding. I've taken a glance at the case, and it seems there is at least one proposal on the table that would directly restrict you personally. After the matter is resolved come back and we can discuss this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program
I would like to request that the page be protected until April 5, 2010. On the article's discussion page, the unregistered user who keeps vandalizing the article has promised to resume vandalism after the current block expires in two days. Other users have informed the user that Greece is not a member of the program until early April, and until then, will require visas to enter the U.S. User refuses to listen, therefore, help is requested once again.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've suggested what I think is a rather obvious "middle ground" compromise on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring
Hi,

I apologies for edit-warring, even if it was to revert the disruption of a banned user. The user in question has just been blocked and a new user has just popped up to continue the disruption. I have filed an SPI report and will not revert anything he does or comment on the talk page until he is blocked again. I've learned from my previous mistake. I hope you understand that with the best intentions to remain cool in all circumstances, when someone is constantly taunting me and making me out to be some malicious, calculating, brain-washed, starry-eyed cult follower on a mission, I have to admit I feel a bit challenged sometimes. I guess I slipped.

I agree with what you suggest regarding the tag and will reduce it down once the current round of disruption is dealt with.

Is there any way to fast-track dealing with the various re-incarnations of Lucy? He isn't difficult to spot on a watch list since he always makes some comment to highlight my affiation with the BKWSU such as, "...Brahma Kumari follower BKsimon on his religion's topic page..." , "...one of the cult followers..." and "....its just a guy from the same cult...".

Would you, or another admin, be able to monitor the page and block him on sight? It would save a lot of disruption and it would also save me from being constantly harassed and taunted by this guy.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to bring this to the attention of ArbCom since the article is on a probation placed by them. I'll try to keep an eye on things as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. In case it is relevant, with regards to the article probation, Lucy is definitely the user, User:195.82.106.244, who was banned for a year and is now also on probation. As evidence, he has discussed his ban . Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Klotzman.jpg
Hi, I can't find a permission for a free license at the source and have nominated the image for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I remember at the time have a conversation with somebody about this,which is now at User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 11. They were adding copyvios to the article, and I warned them about it, and the next day the website was suddenly licensed with the GNU/CCSA license. Apparently they changed their mind about that in the intervening months. I'm not sure you can actually do that, once you've released a page under a free license it's kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle, but I don't care if the image is deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lyndah Pizarro 78
Is a sock of, do you think? TJRC (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's much, much bigger than that. See LTA. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodness. OK, I'll just continue to revert on the couple pages where I've seen this. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program
As promised, anonymous user is vandalizing the article and refusing to adhere to facts on discussion page. Page protection is one again requested. I am tired of deleting or reverting the page to reflect the current program members. --XLR8TION (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated Re: LtFury's block
Sorry, somehow I managed to miss your message on this subject from earlier! Anyway, really, no harm done. I had actually not noticed he'd breached 3RR (I checked, but I must've just missed the offending edits) and probably would've instituted a short, gentle block if I had. You haven't done anything I wouldn'tve in the same situation and were fully in your rights either way. No worries. - Vianello (Talk) 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, hopefully everyone will get the point about edit warring and that will be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of intro to reincarnation article
I think it is over-the-top, and more than a little disrespectful, since the NSF didn't single out any Christian beliefs as pseudoscientific. A couple users are supporting that information. Do you think it's OK? I come to you because you said users should be somewhat sensitive of others' beliefs. I can't imagine another encyclopedia having that in the introduction. Mitsube (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Marina Orlova
The discussion, if you could call it that, has started again on the talkpage with the return of the ip today, there is still no agreement at all, the ip said again today he is going to put it back in, the protection expires tomorrow, any suggestions, he is not listening to me, all he wants to add is that orlova is a stripper and pole dancer and sex phone worker, this controversial claim is unsupported anywhere else reliable online, any ideas? The other editor admin editor BD2412 appears to have accepted it is very weak and siad some content could go in if supporting citation were available, no new citation have been presented. I fully expect this single purpose ip to reinsert his disired addition tomorrow when the article is scheduled to unlock? Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are advised not to make preemptive protections. If they disruptively edit the article, request protection again at RPP and/or report at WP:3RR or WP:ANI as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He has no support and has stuffed it back in again, he has stuffed in half his claims and taken his other half to the BLPN where he has got no support at all. Please re protect or something, I should not have to stress myself out dealing with such additions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to concur that the information at issue is neither reliable enough, nor demonstrably notable enough, to merit inclusion. bd2412  T 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Free Belarus and User:Mogilev82
Can you look into what's going on here? Free Belarus was blocked for having a promotional username, andyou unblocked them to allow them to change their name. Now, the user & talk pages of Free Belarus have been redirected to those of Mogilev92, but the edits of Mogilev82 are being signed as being by Free Belarus -- see this edit for instance. Also, the contribution history of Free Belarus shows some edits from 3/21. I can't figure out if Free Belarus was re-named to Mogilev82, so that their contributions are now found there, why the Free Belarus name has its own contribution list? Was it renamed from something else? In any case, shouldn't Free Belarus be blocked and Mogilev82 told to change their sig? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The name has been changed, but it appears he is essentially evading the name change. This seems to have been accomplished by either manually signing his name with a link to the redirect or modifying his sig to point to the old name. There's no specific rule against doing that, lots of users have signatures that aren't exactly the same as their user name, but it does seem a bit dishonest and contrary to the spirit of agreeing to change the name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be the kind of loophole that should be plugged, since allowing someone to use an improper username in their sig would entirely defeat the purpose of having standards for usernames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) So, here's a timeline of what happened:


 * at 16:54 you unblocked Free Belarus to allow them to make a name change
 * at 17:11 Free Belarus makes a request for a name change to Mogilev82
 * at 17:14 while unblocked, but before the name change is made, Free Belarus posts to AN/I
 * at 17:20 The name change is made, because of this, the edit made at 17:14 is now marked as being made by Mogilev82, but the sig is unchanged
 * at 17:23 A new "Free Belarus" account is created
 * from 17:24 to 18:08 the new Free Belarus account edits, including continuing the edit war they were involved in, posting at WP:AN3, and posting a comment to User talk:Mogilev82 and reverting it

I still haven't sorted this out entirely, but unless something else occured that I'm not seeing, it looks as if this editor has recreated the username they were told was against policy, and deliberately edited with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit warring complaint is here. The editor also edited as User:79.177.170.41. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's also a possibility that some kind of glitch occured in the name change? I've asked the admin who made the change, User:Useight, to look in here and comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also asked the original blocking admin to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like they recreated the original username (User:Free Belarus) after they were renamed, so I've reblocked User:Free Belarus as a sock. I left their new username alone. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought happened, but doesn't a name change leave a redirect in place? And if not, shouldn't the system block the recreation of a name which has just been changed, or something?  Anyway, thanks for taking care of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are redirects, for both userpage and talk page. He has now been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts and IPs and edit warring using a variety of the same. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was, if the username change left a redirect in place, wouldn't that have stopped the name "Free Belarus" from being re-created?  That's what confused me.  Anyway, it's academic, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't affect anything since creating a username doesn't create the userpage. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course!! Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I completely missed out on this, I just got off work. Anyway, yeah, renaming doesn't prevent the original username from being recreated. Nihonjoe was right to reblock the account. I wouldn't've blocked the new account for socking, though. He may have not known the name was changed and inadvertently recreated the old account. However, I have not looked at the contribs, and if he was actually edit warring, then I support the block of the new account. Thanks, Joe, for handling that. Useight (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the first two edits by the new account were to the talk page of the re-named account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel 8 RfP decline
As per your reply in RfP, I've replied, pointing out that I had indeed initiated discussion on the matter, which the other user chose to alternatively ignore and/or use as a platform for uncivil language. The page has since been protected, but I had wanted to point out that you missed an obvious facet of the problem prompting the request. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That in no way, shape, or form changes the fact that you were participating in an edit war. You are one of the parties the page is now protected from. Protecting a page isn't something we actually want to do if it can be avoided, as it could have in this instance if you had stopped edit warring before it got to this point. Would it have killed you if the page said something you didn't agree with for a while? Was it really necessary to escalate it to the point where the page needed protection and you and this other editor face the potential of being blocked? Those are the points I find obvious that you apparently missed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't missed, which is why I took the matter to both RfP and AN/I. I opened a discussion about the matter, and the other person refused to even consider adding citations and grew increasingly hostile. When I saw that I had reverted three times, i realized I needed help - that this other person wasn't going to listen to reason, no matter how many times they were reverted. So yeah, I was edit-warring, but at least I was trying to talk about it and correct the problem. Funny how you missed that. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Username block
I wanted to advise you that I just blocked an account for a username problem although you previously declined the block on UAA. The account is Sophiesmithpwns. As you had noted, this account was already on a final warning for creating an attack page. When I looked at the deleted attack page, which expressed a schoolchild's hatred of a teacher, I found a snide attack reference to a female classmate. In context, I find it highly likely that the username here is a further attack or attempt to besmirch the name of the classmate and therefore needed to be blocked as soon as possible. I hope this is okay, but if there are any concerns please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine with me, but thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

References in other languages.
Hello, can you help me please, here at the Wikipedia English, do we need to present English language sources about problematic issues or we can use other-language sources? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Click here to see the relevant policy section. Basically, English language sources are strongly preferred, but are not required.If you quote them in an article though, be prepared to provide an accurate translation. Google translate can provide rough machine translations, but they are usually of a fairly poor quality. Beeblebrox (talk)

Interrupting an ANI
Hi, I address you as you are the first admin I noticed on the ANI board. There is an ANI opened about an hour ago one editor who is not an admin close it without any authority. Would appreciate your help.--Gilisa (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Need your help
Dear Beeblebrox,

The user "Shmayo" is vandalizing the entry titled "Tel Skuf" that I have been maintaining for a while after a lot of research. The entry is about a village that I was born in. I have lived there for 15 years, and I know what I am writing in Wikipedia is 100% correct. He keeps on randomly changing it for no reason. I have asked him more than once to stop. I HAVE PLACED A WARNING IN HIS TALK PAGE BUT HE DELETED IT!! I have now placed another warning. I saw that you have punished him before for deleting a warning, and I am hoping that you could help me tame this user. Please note that the people of this village are really willing to improve their page (i am not the only one involved), and they should be given the chance to represent their village. The user mentioned above has no information about this village, and he is not producing any constructive input beside reversing the true information that we have entered.

Best Regards --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a few things you should be aware of:
 * Users are free to delete anything they like from their own talk page as long as they are not currently under a block
 * Edit warring, which you were engaging in, can get everyone involved blocked
 * We don't "punish" users, the purpose of warnings and blocks is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and any contentious statements need to be verified by reliable sources
 * I've protected the page from editing for a while so that you and the others can discuss the matter instead of edit warring over it. If needed, pursue some form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Beeblebrox
 * I totally understand what you have mentioned above. Believe me, I have tried to solve this issue with them; however, they have never considered it. Let me give you an idea of the problem: These people want to force a name upon us that we do not approve. They have been bulling all our entries in Wikipedia. It is like having the Chinese force Americans to rename the USA to something else!!! Does this sound logical? This is basically the issue. I am not looking for a war on Wikipedia; all I want is to name the people of my village the way they want it.
 * As for the references, I wasn't able to provide them for two reasons: First, I was busy reverting vandalism of others. Second, most of these sources and references are either in Arabic or Aramaic. I wasn't sure how to handle that.
 * Thank you for your understanding and good patience. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * English language sources are of course preferred, but there is no requirement that sources be in English, just that they be reliable. Click here for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Beeblebrox, I invite you to keep an eye on the proposed resolution to the article of Tel Skuf. I think we have reached a mutual agreement, by asking the help of a neutral user (User:Taivo) who is a professor of Linguistics at a major U.S. university. By April 1st, there should be a resolution ready to be added to the article. Thank you for putting an end to our ridiculous warring, --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

** Nothing else to be Said ** Dear Mr. Beeblebrox, After the excellent work of Prof. Taivo who was willing to read Archives and go through his own research to give his own input on the matter (see here), and after we have been honored to have Dr. Wilmshurst himself to give his most appreciated input on the article (see here), I must add one last thing. When I didn't have any sources (beside my word and that of my people) I offered Mr. Shmayo giving up on my Chaldean ethnicity by excluding it from the article and keeping only the reference to the religious denomination of the village to stop warring (see here). However, he refused my generous offer. Now, Thank God, with the help of two generous gentlemen who were willing to give my humble village their precious time, we know and have proved that this is a Chaldean village. It is for this that I must now refuse giving up on my ethnicity. I have to ask you to please keep the intro exactly the way it is in the article (after adding the correct name "Tel Isqof" along with the other aliases). This is only to teach Mr. Shmayo that such misleading attempts against ethnic affiliations of others are not appreciated in Wikipedia. He did seem to know before hand that there was no consensus regarding his claim about Chaldean Ethnicity (see here). My deepest thanks to you, Prof. Taivo, and Dr. Wilmshurst.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:UCLAcdemic
The block template you left on User talk:UCLAcdemic doesn't match with the length of time you actually blocked them, till 1 April 2010. Cheers. something lame from CBW 00:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that literally about five seconds before you left this message, I'm off to make that change now. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way I would have also blocked them indefinitely based on the threat and their inability to see that they had made one. something lame from CBW 01:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam in Denmark
user:UCLAcdemic may be following thru on its threat to use IPs to edit the Islam in Denmark article. If I am reading Geolocate correctly, and sometimes I don't, the IPs are geographically widely separated. However, they are making identical or nearly identical edits to user:UCLAcdemic. I wonder if they are open proxies? Could the article be semi-protected? Cardamon (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin has a handle on this, both ips are blocked for a month. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

71.14.0.55
It looks like is the sockmaster for, as he hasn't edited since October and suddenly turns up as soon as the IP gets blocked, to revert that article to the IP's version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a sort of "poor man's checkuser" by changing the block settings to disallow registered users using the same address. Maybe that will get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Didn't know you could do that. Nifty. Meanwhile, I reverted the latest change, so we'll see if anything happens. Of course, if he's reading this, the game is up. Or maybe not. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least, this edit by the IP implicitly declares a conflict of interest in editing the perpetual-motion article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:U
Your input is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly redirects
Hi, User:M.C. Brown Shoes seems to have a bunch of nonsense redirects, e.g. King of Knives, King of knives, Male Bonding: The Motion Picture, Not a planet, South Pacific Airlines, It's Up to You, Haxed by Public transport. If you have time, you could take them through the RfD process, or find someone else who does. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are nonsense redirects you can nominate them for speedy deletion via WP:CSD, the speedy I declined was one where the redirect was blanked, not the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These redirects are all from 2007 by the way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA Fixes

 * 1) Articulate specific, objective criteria where feasible, e.g. 6 months editing history, 2000 edits, involvement at AfD or other administration-related pages.  This would help with the specious opposes and would reduce the tendency for the criteria to creep upward.
 * 2) Have some sort of system where several (2-3) specific users (volunteers chosen on rotation from a pool, for example, or some similar system) agree to review a candidate's editing history in detail and report on what they find.  Most of the ill-advised promotions in the past could have been prevented if someone did this, and with some candidacies, no one does.
 * 3) Most "RFA regulars" are recent or upcoming adminship candidates.  This creates a clubby environment and a conflict of interest.  I have previously suggested that we limit !voting to people who have been an admin for at least six months, to deal with this.  There are other ways it could be addressed.
 * 4) Find some way to publicly recognize that most of the paranoia at RFA dates from an era when there was no real limit on administrator behavior.  This is no longer the case.  Despite its myriad other failings, arbcom deals with such cases reasonably effectively.
 * 5) Require ID confirmation.  There is a well-founded concern about admin socks, bad-faith admin accounts operated by people with allegiances elsewhere, and the transfer of admin accounts to new owners when the original person loses interest.  This would address these concerns, and lower the level of paranoia.
 * 6) Quit focusing on "activity levels," however defined.  People who have a life outside of Wikipedia, historically, have shown more judgment and more staying power than those who do not.
 * 7) Index and publish people's RFA comments by author using a bot.  It would offer great insight into how RFA really works.
 * 8) Switch to periodic, scheduled elections run by actual voting software.  If nothing else this would increase turnout, as the recent arbcom election shows.  It would also open up the possibility of offering a fixed number of slots to be filled by those with the highest number of votes (or support percentage or whatever), which would guarantee a certain flow of new admins
 * 9) Switch to a mentorship/sponsorship program where new admins are under the sponsorship of an existing admin who agrees to review their work for six months and then make a recommendation for permanent adminship.  Some form of community review and ratification would take place at the beginning and the end of the six month period with the understanding that much of the responsibility would be on the sponsoring admin.  To prevent abuses, admins would only be allowed to sponsor one or two candidates at a time.
 * 10) See also WikiProject on Adminship
 * 11) Various sorts of jury systems have been proposed.  For example, 20 admins (or some other number) active in the last month could be selected at random to vet RFA requests and reach consensus on them.  A smaller group would be better able to reach consensus rather than having the matter deteriorate into voting, and many of the problems that originate with the nature of the voter pool would be solved.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think my talk page is the right place to have this discussion, since there is already one ongoing on the RFA talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it
and glad to know that I played a part. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unblock review of Factomancer
Hi, just to let you know that my block of Factomancer was not made (or labeled as) an arbitration enforcement measure, so feel free to review it normally as per WP:BP.  Sandstein  20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, I think I just assumed as much since it was you making the block. Oddly that was what got me thinking about the situation and led me to start the thread at AN that I was messaging you about at roughly the same time you left this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing - Arbcom's ruling only applies to AE not community edit restrictions etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384
I don't think increasing the blocks in such an exponential manner was necessary. See (the top part only) & User talk:Mk5384. – xeno talk 15:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin by any stretch of the imagination, but three other administrators clearly turned down the unblock request. Also, during this block, MK openly cursed at, threatened, and accused at least five other editors of being part of a conspiracy.  I think having this back to a 24 hour block will only inspire the editor to return to their original behavior, probably with a feeling of "vindication" which would give an open door to further uncivil behavior.  In short, I feel this was a very bad call and will likely cause more problems than it prevents. -OberRanks (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reducing the block was improper. There is no indication that Mk5384 has the slightest clue, and I'm confident he will soon be re-indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree if they continue as they have, they will be indefinitely blocked in the near future. – xeno talk 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See comments from the original blocking admin: . See also my comments at the user's talk page - the changing of the block settings was absolutely not an endorsement of their actions, but a tweak done in deference to a long-standing tradition to grant users leeway when they sound-off about being blocked. – xeno talk  16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A bizarre and recurring theme on wikipedia is the willingness of some users to get themselves permanently banished due to a huge argument over a single sentence, or in this case, merely a couple of words in an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Academic feuds are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small" – Henry Kissinger. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My goal was to get this user to comprehend that he was heading in the wrong direction by continuing to treat WP as a battleground. Clearly that effort failed. This guy just wants to argue, it doesn't matter about what. I'm done with him though, the last thing I did before signing off yesterday was to unwatchlist his talk page, I can see where this is going and since he's become increasingly fixated on me instead of facing his own issues it's probably best if I have no further involvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we will see what happens tomorrow afternoon (time zone differences not withstanding). if the user embarks on a talk page/edit war rampage, we will be right back to where we started. -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * His IP geolocates to Washington, DC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User might be British. I have noticed several "whilst" statements in the many threads.  By the way, BB, sorry for keeping it up on your talk page! -OberRanks (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be ironic if he turned out to be a diplomat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry
Could you take a look at the contributions for the following users:

I see you have interacted with a few of them and I am positive they are all sockpuppets. I would start up an SPI, but this case is fairly obvious. Thanks,  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in, but User:PwnedByMe is rather unconstrutive and seems unwilling to discuss issues. The user also removed maintenance templates without fixing the problems. PDCook (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as User:Macechap123 was indef blocked, User:Zeuz101, User:PwnedByMe and User:Kar.patriots all requested that their autoblock be lifted, and they all have the same IP address.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry case opened.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All six users above (including eight others) blocked indef.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for BKWSU page expired
Hi Beeblebrox,

Just noticed that the page protection has expired. Since Lucy is still quite determined to jump over the auto-confirmed hurdle do you think it maybe prudent to extend the page protection? From what I've seen so far I get the impression that he will keep trying until either he or Wikipedia expires. I am sure he will start using IPs and new accounts just as soon as he realises he can. The latest sock was active until 26th March. Should I make a formal request on the WP:RFPP page for this or wait until we see some (inevitable) actual signs of disruption?

Let me know.

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You unbanned a user, why?
I noticed you unbanned Grant.Alpaugh but I could not find a discussion as to the reasoning. I did find his plead to be unbanned and noticed he claimed that he lost his mind and become addicted to wikipedia but all that had changed. There appeared no mention in his plead to his abuse of sock puppeteer and control issues. In the short number of days since he was welcomed back to the community he is picking up the same conflicts and going straight after the same articles he mistreated in the past. I am not a savy wikipedia user but as an editor who's work he is questioning I am curious as to the reasoning of removing a permanent ban. Thanks very much. Morry32 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DIscussion is here: . Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ThanksMorry32 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
mono 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock of PicsByK
FYI, I had already lifted the autoblock of when you declined the request. I fail to see how there was any abusive sockpuppetry in this situation, but please let me know if I've overlooked something. As I see it, the person used an account that was blocked as a violation of the username policy (role account/associated with an organization). The person, after learning such an account was unacceptable, returned to their personal account. Alternate account? Yes. Sockpuppet? No. Best, -- auburn pilot  talk  18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I saw it as the autoblock functioning as intended. I agree that creating a second single purpose account for a particular role is borderline at best with regard to socking, and I did consider just lifting it, so either way is fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Smailliwsemaj
Hi, you recently declined this user's unblock. Their block expired and they've gone back to making disruptive edits. See their contributions. They've been disruptive on various places for a while now - inappropriately recreating articles closed as redirects at AFD, inserting false information into music articles, writing inappropriate messages on talk pages and creating this sort of thing. Could you please block them? They're clearly not getting the message, and are causing disruption.  Aiken   &#9835;   18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another admin beat me to it by a few seconds. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy
A four day protection for this? Really? It is the one of the most important topic in the news at the moment. This is analogous to protecting the TFA. Could you please unprotect the page? NW ( Talk ) 19:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a rather large edit war involving many parties brewing, do you want to babysit it for the next week while partisans constantly edit it to suit their own POV? Seriously, if the answer is yes, go ahead and lift it with my blessing. I may as well point out that this spilled over to Namir Noor-Eldeen and I gave it the same protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather deal with blocking blatantly partisan editors than cutting off improvements to such a vital article. Thank you for allowing me to unprotect the page. NW ( Talk ) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Namir Noor-Eldeen
At the WP:RPP page, you had indicated you were fully protecting Namir Noor-Eldeen for five days because it was to receive the same level of protection at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy. However, it appears the latter page is only semi-protected, and that now, it can be edited by experienced editors, whereas Noor-Eldeen cannot. Is there any particular reason for this approach? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the above conversation topic until after I made my post. Now that I see that, I also feel that Namir Noor-Eldeen should be semi-protected, since the logic behind protecting it in the first place was to extend to it the same level of protection as the 2007 airstrike article. Also, there is less of a potential war brewing at this article than the other, and I also would like to add more biographical information to the Noor-Eldeen page, so it's less centered around the controversy and can stand better as a stand-alone article. Let me know what you think... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have dropped the article to semi-protection, as it appears that Beeblebrox has gone offline. He is free to undo my action if he wishes. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, I'm working on-call today and had to leave for a while. I apparently hit the wrong button, causing the disconnect between the two protections. I'm fine with the semi on both. I only checked the diffs, I didn't read the whole article, I was thinking this was more in the old news department, not realizing the events the last few days that had made it such a hot-button topic, and then I had to leave before delving back into it, hence my somewhat curt response earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In Too Deep (The 39 Clues)
Hello Beeblebrox. I requested speedy because I moved the above article to In Too Deep (novel) before realizing that I could not do the same to Storm Warning (The 39 Clues). I didn't see the need to go to RFD because I had made this move accidentaly and was the only contributor to the redirect. Is it OK is you move In Too Deep (novel) to In Too Deep (The 39 Clues) over the redirect, for consistency reasons? Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry, I apparently didn't notice this message when you originally posted it. I went ahead and made the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA Optin
Hi - thanks again for your feedback/changes here. I think we've got a pretty good consensus to implement these changes and before I do so in a single edit I wanted to confirm whether or not you would like your changes attributed to you, and if so - would you care to perform a histmerge on the two forks of the article. If the attribution is not important then just let me know and I'll make all the changes in a single edit referencing your name in the comments. 7 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) '' (this message copied to all three admin who helped with the page). ''
 * The other two editors agreed to just a single edit. I'm leaving for the day shortly so I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and made the change.  If it's a problem we can revert and histmerge.  Thanks, and have a good weekend.   7  08:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

modern cooperative socialism
Greetings,

Thank your for your helpful input re this new page I created. Clearly, I am just a little less new at wiki pages than my friend (whom I posted the page for). I didn't know about caps vs. non-caps. How can I fix that issue? Do I need you or HalfShadow to delete the page and then I can make a new one with upper and lower case words? And I will have my friend add further reliable sources (as I don't follow the movement per say, the sources she'd included looked reliable to me, and had wiki pages, so I thought I was okay on that. Will endeavor to get better.) Many thanks in advance for your helpful critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlentini (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Modern cooperative socialism currently exists as a redirect page. If you think you can make it into a stand alone article, as opposed to s subsection of the current article on Socialism, you can do that by editing the redirect page to add your content, being sure to provide reliable sources to verify the content. Alternately you could create a user subpage to create a draft version, and I or another admin can move it to the redirect page when it is ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

K-1 World MAX 2010 Final 16, K-1 MAX Final 16
Can you please restore the speedy deletion on the pages created by the user User:Abdel1991, both of them listed above are bogus. The correct page for the last event is here K-1 World MAX 2009 World Championship Tournament Final 16 and the other one doesn't exist. Mind as well ban the guy as well.thxMarty Rockatansky (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I converted the other pages to redirects. I don't see any reason to block or ban the other user, I don't see any attempt by you to actually discuss these matters with them.  Blocks and bans are not handed out on whims, there has to be a demonstrable problem or policy violation, and you must discuss or at least warn the user first. Since you have given no reason at all for your request that they be banned I certainly won't pursue the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * K-1 World MAX 2010 Final 16 is a wrong redirect to 2009 event, there's gonna be an event by that name on July. I think its a violation and a problem to create an event pages with incorrect names of future events of no references nor an official announcements on the card. These should be deleted not redirected.Marty Rockatansky (talk)

NEED YOUR HELP
Dear Beeblebrox.

I have previously uploaded an entry on Olmeca Tequila that was rejected and want to send you the re-written neutral text so you can advise if the content is now neutral and suitable for Wikipedia. Please could you email me your email address to hannahfoster2000@googlemail.com so i can share it with you before uploading

Much Appreciated

THanks


 * You can email me by clicking the "email this user" button in the left hand column. Alternately you can create a user subpage where the article can be worked on until it is ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a year
Hi. This is to inform you that you have been blocked from editing list.wikia.com for a year: block log. This may be of no concern, as you don't appear to have ever edited that project. Doan-worry; I was whacked, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming this is the same user by this name that edits here: what a fucking asshole ANobody is. Good fucking riddance. Thanks for letting me know about this pointless block on a project that nobody gives two shits about. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No assumptions necessary. For what it's worth, you're in good company . Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that he is continues to manifest the civility and maturity which have made him a legend all over the internets. pablo hablo. 11:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC) not blocked yet ...
 * Yep, and obviously I'm done smiling through my teeth and being polite to him. Of all the petty, and frankly pointless, things to do, blocking accounts that aren't even registered out of spite is pretty low. Of course I could just use another name if I actually wanted to edit whatever the hell list.wikia is supposed to be anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Block me please
Hello, can you block me until July 1st please? I think that I meet all your criteria. Thanks a lot for being willing to do so! Smartse (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears you do meet my criteria, I'll do it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Beeblebrox's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Community decision violation
I wonder if this (first sentence) and this (red words) are violations of this interaction ban? I'm not sure about it, but in any case-would appreciate if you check it. --Gilisa (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This Interaction ban between Factomancer and Gilisa clearly states that Gilisa is prohibited from "comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party......The restriction is to be interpreted broadly." (My bolding). So please tell me; exactly how does the above not violate Gilisa´s interaction ban? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Didn´t read carefully enough; sorry. Huldra (talk)
 * According to his user page he decided today to take a long break, so it's probably best not to bother with it at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second, so declaring on your user page that you are taking a break is a free ticket to break the rules and not have consequences? I'd like to point out that Factomancer has claimed that she is going on a break before, only to change her mind and come back after a couple of days. Clearly that break didn't help her alter her behaviour, as she has been banned several times since then and has violated her interaction ban yet again here. Aside from the links Gilisa provided above, take a look at these:
 * - direct reference to Mbz1 through diffs and complaining about it on her user page
 * - AN/I report with the same references to Mbz1. After an admin comments that she is likely to be reprimanded for this behaviour, she attempts to delete the entire AN/I report (her comments and others')
 * Admin Sandstein was informed about this on his talk page but he expressed his desire not to act here (understandable as he has been heavily involved in this whole mess) and to let another admin deal with the violation Breein1007 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a free pass, but if they really are taking a break that is a good thing, they obviously need it. Since they feel that I have "personally attacked" them and they have tried to banish me from their talk page I probably shouldn't deal with his either even though I find their accusations towards me ridiculous. Anyway it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's Factomancer's previous break . She took it last time she got in trouble for behaving badly. It didn't last long.
 * I find it amazing that a user behaving like a 12 year old spoiled brat can intimidate admins into not dealing with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry Beeblebrox but this is getting ridiculous. The list of admins refusing to deal with taking action against Factomancer is growing. So the message she gets is that if she just pisses off enough admins, she'll rule this place. I already brought this to Sandstein and he didn't want to take action because he has been heavily involved and banned Factomancer in the past. Fine, I can understand that. But you are saying that you don't want to get involved because Factomancer has accused you of personally attacking her by commenting that you supported her previous block? I agree, her accusations towards you were ridiculous. But with all due respect, allowing her to get away with breaking the rules because you are scared of getting involved is even more ridiculous. That's why you're here! That's what admins are expected to do. I shouldn't have to run in circles trying to find an admin with the balls to enforce the rules. If I report something once, to one admin, that should be enough to see a result. Anyway, this is taking up too much of my energy and time. I am going to inform admin Tim Song about the violation and hope that he is the one who is willing to take action. If not, I give up and assume that anarchy has taken over. Breein1007 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, according to the interaction restrictions I'm allowed, if I understand it correctly, to address other admin only if the first admin didn't comment in 24 hours. You did comment, but you tell that you don't want to deal with this because you are not in the best position to do that. So, I want to ask you if I'm allowed to address another admin without the risk of violating any of the restricitions. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh; Breein1007 has already contacted 3 admins about this in the last couple of hours. Sorry, Gilisa, but are you sure there will be any "new" admins left for you to contact? ;D On a more serious note: Do you really think Factomancer has behaved much worse than Mbz1? I don´t. And I don´t know the background for the interaction ban, but I can see that it is strongly needed...for all three of you. So the above words: "let sleeping dogs lie" sounds very sensible to me. Move on, please. Cheers,  Huldra (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, fine, you win. I have examaned the diffs and now I will make an administrative decision. Those remarks are obviously a reference to The Trial, a novel by Franz Kafka which melodramatic people like to compare to their own situation when they feel confronted by an unjust system. While I don't agree with that assessment, I am not aware of any restriction that says Factomancer may not make references to works of fiction on their own talk page. Therefore no block is warranted and you can consider the matter closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, I wasn't referring to any references to works of fiction. I was referring to violations of the topic ban between Factomancer and Mbz1. Factomancer directly made references to Mbz1 in the links I provided. I don't appreciate you taking this lightly and making a joke out of this situation. If you are going to refuse to take action then that's fine, but don't say something like this. Do you not realize that you are encouraging her to continue behaving like this? I just don't understand for the life of me... Breein1007 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a joke. I was asked if these diffs might represent a breach of an editing restriction. I don't believe they do. Since several other admins have also declined to take any action, you should consider the possibility that such a block is not warranted and would serve no good purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to consider that possibility when you made a comment about some reference to The Trial, while I was asking you to look at a clear violation of the topic ban where Factomancer referenced Mbz1. And for your information, "several other admins" have not also declined to take any action. One admin said that he could not take action because he was about to get on a flight. Another admin said it probably was a violation but he preferred someone else to take the required action. That brought me to you. So please don't misrepresent the series of events. Anyway, that's all from me. Have fun, Breein1007 (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, Breein didn't refer to the "Trial", it seems that you didn't read the diffs carefully. Anyway, in regard to me, I asked whether it will be ok if I address other admin (because in you say you are not in comfortable position to get involved) and yet didn't get any response from you. Your answer is important to me. I', waiting it. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, at the beginning of this thread I was asked to look into this diff :, which is in fact a reference to the Kafka novel. As I've repeated several times now I don't think admin action is warranted and it would be best for all involved to let this matter go for the time being. I don't know the specific details of whatever ban you are under, but if you have to ask if you would be breaking it or not then you probably would be. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another admin blocked her. Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the all issue is not relevant any longer. But just in principle, how come you are not familiar with my specific ban details?--Gilisa (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should I be? I've never had any interaction with you that I can recall before this thread. I don't even know where your ban is detailed, or whether it was imposed by the community at large, or ArbCom, or a specific admin. There are over a thousand administrators and hundreds of thousands of editors, and I do not specialize in interaction ban enforcement. As I've said I generally find it a pointless endeavor to make any kind of partial ban because they generally create more drama than they prevent, this very thread being a perfect example. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should you be? Hmmm..I have to keep my right to remain silent.--Gilisa (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it, you are under the same interaction ban as Factomancer, and you have violated it again and again by participating in this conversation at all. So, shall I block you now or would you like to let this go, as I have been suggesting all along? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you initiated this conversation and Factomancer was blocked again, it seems only fair that I should block you for the same 24 hours that they got. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to be blocked
I want to be blocked until June 1, 2010 in accordance with your self blocking criteria. Unioneagle (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh :)
I laughed! Pedro : Chat  12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you got a chuckle out of it. I guess the RFA "drought" is over... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Metapedia
The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Metapedia. The article Metapedia was eventually turned into a protected redirect because of so many attempts to recreate the article. Clinchfield (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually figured that out just after declining the speedy, I looked at the deletion discussion and the deleted versions of the article. See my comments at Talk:Metapedia (white nationalist encyclopedia). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm going to nominate this for deletion if that's alright. Clinchfield (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with that, be sure to link to the first AFD in your nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Clinchfield (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, thank you for bringing the matter of the ban to AN/I! I responded there. I would like you to reconsider blocking Gilisa, please. At first I looked at how many messages Gilisa left at your talk page, and I thought the block was justified, but when I read the messages, I have changed my opinion. Gilisa reported the other party only once. All other messages were questions about the rules of the ban in general. I understand you are irritated, and rightly so with all activity at your talk page that I was not aware about until now, but Gilisa did not violate the interaction ban. You've made your point, please be fair and unblock the user now. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it might be a good idea to notify the administrators, who were involved with the ban about your post. Those are SGGH, Sandstein and Georgewilliamherbert‎. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left you a comment at Mbz1's talk page. I suspect that you will be refusing to read this and deleting it, as you have made a habit of doing to my comments on your talk page recently. With that said, I am expecting a response to my message on Mbz1's talk page. Your misinterpretation of the interaction ban has led you to make an erroneous block. Breein1007 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you unblocked her. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#COMMUNISM
"From each according to his reliable sources, to each according to his verification"? User:LeadSongDog come howl  20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He's back
FYI - That user who was blocked under the name Twcinc1 for making up the "Transformers Warriors" hoax seems to be back under the name Cheapsake20 and under anon User talk:24.207.226.65. Mathewignash (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User and ip blocked, article deleted and salted. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not fair.
I have to tell you that I am extremely surprised from what you had told me on my IPA report. Just for your attention, I had never been incivil with that user, never. I had my discussions with the other one that started defending him there. I had a block of one week for saying a lighter word in foreign language to the user defending him now. I have no experience in reporting, but the way you left the case, it looks like I am guilty of reporting... The only way of stoping this is acting when something like this occurs. This way it just looks as impunity and incentive for more... And when tomorow I get another one of these insults, and I report it again, same will happend, right? What a justice... FkpCascais (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Since you weren't notified, I thought I'd let you know about a discussion about RFPP at ANI. —DoRD (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Need your help
Dear Beeblebrox,

We need your help in protecting the Cai Li Fo martial arts page as well as the Jeong Yim page. The vandalism has started again and I requested protection. Someone is doing redirect and move wars and well as petty editing. The two people who maintain this page is CLFtruthseeking and I. There has been numerous contributions to the article which are valid, but we are now experiencing some vandalism. I authored and created this page and CLFtruthseeking and I have validated the contents with the highest ranking practitioner of this art. Please help us protect the contents of these pages. It took many, many months of hard work to input all of the Chinese characters, verifiable history, and names to create this page. Thank you. Huo Xin (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you have made a request at WP:RFPP and tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page, those are both good moves. I would caution you, however, that being the "author and creator" of the page does not grant you any special status. You do not own articles that you create. If you can't reach agreement with the other editors of the page, pursue some form of dispute resolution to resolve the impasse. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not
pissed off on you. I actually had a good laugh, when I read why you blocked me for 72 hours. You wrote: (violation of interaction ban, escalating time from last block). As a matter of fact I have never violated my interaction ban, and never was blocked for that, but I did violate my topic ban, and was blocked 2 times for that. I have so many bans with so many rules that administrators, who are blocking me get confused sometimes, and I feel sorry for them :) I also laughed at that message "But just in principle, how come you are not familiar with my specific ban details?", and then you got yourself familiar and blocked the editor :) But seriously Gilisa's block was not fair. If I were you, I would have said that I am sorry. I understand you were very irritated, and probably rightly so, by all the activities at your talk page, but 24 hours block was a little bit too much IMO. In any case something good came out of those blocks. Without them my  interaction ban's turtles still would not have been identified :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Left Right Think Tank
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Left Right Think Tank. 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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice,` in eight months of admin work this is the first time I've actually had an AFD I closed wind up at DRV so I'm interested to see how this turns out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais
Hello Beeblebrox! I hope not to disturb you, but you actually left unanswered a question that I have made you on a ANI report I have made recently:. It is not like you´re obligated to answer to me but, it would be nice from you and it will help me understand better the situation and also, possibly, make me a even better wikipedian.

Just to remind you, I was reporting a user, AlasdairGreen27, for posting "you can kiss your sorry ass goodbye" on my talk page. Oh, btw, he posted it twice, once on the comment itself and once on the edit summary.

You commented on ANI: "So, incivility is wrong even if it is directed at a user who has been equally nasty?"

I would be really thankfull, and it will be really helpfull to me, if you could provide me where had I been "equaly nasty" with that user? I am shocked with the possibility of that, so I perhaps didn´t noteced it... And also, probably completely coincidentaly, just 15 minutes after I had donne my unblocking request, where I pointed out, among other things, that the offensive user didn´t even receved a warning for his behavior, that you, I repeat, probably completely accidentaly since what you did was not even a warning, made a comment on AlasdairGreen27 talk page where you say:

"This [1] really is not cool. Being right doesn't make it ok to be nasty. As I stated at ANI, it would be best if the two of you endeavored to simply avoid/ignore one another."

well, I do understand the part of, "you can kiss your sorry ass goodbye", not being "cool" but I really didn´t understood the part of him "being right". It would be really important to me to understand this so, in some next time, perhaps can I possibly "be right".

Please don´t consider this questions of mine offensive in any way, it is not that I am questioning your conduct or something similar, but again, the answers on this will just be extremely helpfull to me to become a even better wikipedian. Thanking you in advance, I send you best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
In contrast to the statement you made earlier, with the concise diffs the subject has now gained some discussion. There are 4 other users (with accounts plus a couple IPs that have shown up) in addition to myself who believe administrative action is required in this case and only one who opposes it (other than the user themselves). Would you care to give it another look please? An admin who commented in the beginning asked that I broach the subject of the his previous accounts with him, I have multiple times, and he's flat out refused to disclose them and fails to see anything wrong with this constant ignoring of consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of ToxicWasteGrounds
Hello Beeblebrox. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  James  ( T   C )  21:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's relatively early but I thought I'd see what you thought and am looking into the no socking claim myself.  James  ( T   C )  21:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (replied at User talk:ToxicWasteGrounds Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

ANI (again)
The thread's mostly about a different admin, but your name is mentioned, so just in case you havent seen this yet I think you should: WP:ANI  — Soap  —  22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can hardly wait to see what it is this time... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to say to you Beeblebronx that I was going to warn you about this ANI report, but while I was trying to find how is donne (I had some frustrating preview attempts) and in the meanwile I see another fellow wikipedian done it. You had already answered there anyway, so this really doesn´t matter... It is quite bad practice to acuse people without fundaments and then ignore them when asked about it. I send you regards anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Counter-productive
I suggest to you that it would be extremely counter-productive to block Larry Sanger. No good would come of it. It would only add fuel to fire. Moreover, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Please reflect on this. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated on Jimbo's talk page, we would block anyone else who was actively engaged in trying to get the FBI to bust WP without even thinking about it, but as it could have wider repercussions than just any old block it would probably be best if someone higher up the chain than myself made the decision. Maybe I should have asked Mike Godwin instead, I don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would still be a bad idea if it were anyone else. The fact that the other targets might not have the power to make an issue of it, doesn't make it a good idea. If nothing else, it would look terribly retaliatory. Remember the aphorism "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times you would like to me reiterate that I have no plans to do this myself and that I am trying to kick this decision all the way up to Jimbo. Is four enough? I think we're at four now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is not going to block Larry Sanger. He is not even going to suggest (in public!) that Larry Sanger be blocked. Trust me on this. He knows if he did that, the press from Valleywag on up would have a field day with it. What I think could happen is a bunch of admins vying to make the most extreme statement, and then the dumbest one doing something stupid. But, really, on further consideration, I can't change that, so thanks for listening and replying. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppet
I did make the account, but then, I thought that I never EVER wanted to use it. That is why --Wiki-World is in town! (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to verify this, you will need to log in as the other user, and make an edit to their user or talk page stating that you do not intend to use the account and want the user page deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Service Management Office (SMO) - business Core Competence
Hi, Beeblebrox. Your warning appears to have gone unheeded. This article is a repost of Service Management Office (SMO) and Service Management Office (SMO): business Core Competence, with the article name amended slightly. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the new version and WP:SALTed all previous versions. Hopefully they will get the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U
Hello Beelblebrox, I've added a couple links on the talk page of your draft; as I note there I might have exacerbated the situation in those instances (mea culpa) however I think they still go a long way to demonstrate the issue at hand. I will see what else I can come up with. Thanks for taking the lead here. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again -- I've created this user since it's probably best not to participate in an RFC/U like this as an IP PlainJain (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey I need your help
My account has been blocked on Wikiquote. It's the same as it is here. Now keep in mind I have admited my vamdalsim but I have reformed myself. Can you please help me get unbblocked or lead me to someone who can. BTW, I really have reformed and my body of work proves it. I love me! (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you previously were that you decided to contact me in particular, but I am only an admin here at en.Wikipedia, I don't even have an account on Wikiquote, so I can't help you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well lead me to someone who can. I am trying to improve and have admited my wrongs and am ready to contribute. I can offer something good. Please at least try to do something or give me advice. I love me! (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the first thing about Wikiquote, I've never used it or even looked at it, and in any event they are a separate entity from Wikipedia so there is not really anything that can be done from here. You will have to appeal to whatever mechanism they have over there for unblock requests. Over here you can email the Arbitration Committee as a last resort to appeal a block, maybe they have something similar. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I contacted the admin who blocked me on their Meta page. Wish me luck. Also, can I ever ask you for help on here? I love me! (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to ask for my help anytime. You can also add to your talk page and post a question under it. You can usually get help in just a few minutes that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy
I hope my contributions are a small help in the other direction. I'll pass on the block for now if i can. (doesn't sound like a good thing). Today has been fun, except for all of the "confusion" talk on my page and the Orange Bars(warnings?) on the screen. 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've left a message about why you should reconsider your decision of declining a block. Please reply there, I have watchlisted the page. Aditya Ex Machina 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lega Padana Lombardia & Lombardy Project
Hello, i want to tell you that these parties don't exist in Italy. You should check on Italian Wikipedia, Italian Newspapers and on the website of Italian Minister of the Interior and you will find nothing about them. Because these pages have been written by groups of 3-4 people. The only true party that exist in the reality is the Northern League alias Lega Nord of Umberto Bossi. That's all. I suggest you to check all the information and then delete those pages. Bye.
 * That conveniently ignores the fact that they were nominated for deletion on the basis of being blatant advertising, which they were not. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually...
...I unblocked him and then realized the username he wanted was already taken. I knew (based on his e-mails to me) that he was not going to try and edit, so I did not re-block, merely told him to change his username... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I get it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm such an AGFing fool... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

fyi
You concluded the deletions of Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Uighur guest house, Pakistan, as WP:CSD "attack pages". ,

If I were an administrator considering completing a request for deletion of a redirect I would click on the "what links here" button. If you had done so you would have found no incoming wikilinks. However, in these particular cases, this does not mean that good faith contributors didn't supply incoming wikilinks. It does not mean that the redirects were unsourced.

Note, I am not asserting bad faith on the part of the nominator. But I will assert that I think it was a mistake for Iqinn to have excised the incoming wikilinks, and then subsequently nominated the redirects for deletion without informing everyone that they had excised those incoming wikilinks. The absence of incoming wikilinks denies observers of the information they need to determine whether the redirects were referenced, were meaningful.

Forgive me for wondering whether you would have described these as "attack pages" if you had been aware that intelligence officials have asserted that these specific Uyghur guesthouses were tied to the Taliban and to al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The links that i have removed where inside of a quote and the quoted material did not draw any connection between the guest houses and Al-Qaeda. There are no sources for this connection. I have ask User Geo Swan multiple times for these sources but he failed to provide us with any sources. Talk:Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Talk:Uighur guest house, Pakistan. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all. IQinn (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I dispute Iqinn's assertions. But I won't try to dispute it on your talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Iqinn commented on the draft article User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. Without being specific they asserted WP:OR concerns, leaving me doubly mystified by their assertion there are no sources.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I can only repeat what i said. No sources that would justify to redirect Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Uighur guest house, Pakistan to Al-Qaeda safe house. Only one User who is continuously pushing for this to a point where it has become disruptive to the community because he does not provide us with the relevant sources and he does not provide us with the relevant sources in his newest posts to my talk page. No joy. IQinn (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please
I request the userification of the revision history of Talk:Uighur house, Talk:Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Talk:Uighur guest house, Pakistan to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/talk-Uighur house, User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/talk-Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/talk-Uighur guest house, Pakistan. I will, of course, add the noindex directives to the userified pages. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kind of an odd request, since usually userfication is done so that articles can be worked on in, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway. I want to be clear that these deletions are not an indictment of you but rather of the redirects themselves. Whatever your intentions were in making them they created what I saw as an unacceptable situation, so I took action with regards to the redirects themselves, not you in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for userifying those talk pages. Another contributor asserts I have ignored their concerns.  Since some of my responses are on those talk pages I wanted to be able to provide diffs.


 * I recently moved Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy to article space. User:Iqinn opened rfd of East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) and Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad a day after these they requested deletion of the other redirects.  I changed those redirections to point to Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy.  I think the redirects you deleted may also usefully be redirected to Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy.


 * User:Iqinn conducted a very large campaign of wikilink excision listed here. They excised several thousand wikilinks, with very little explanation.  The removal of those wikilinks changed reviewing the context where these redirects were used, from trivial, to hours of work.  I am very unhappy about that.  If, after reviewing the context, I think the redirects you closed as delete do make sense after all, what next step do you recommend?


 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like you and Iqinn have some serious differences of opinion on these subjects, it's probably time to look to some form of dispute resolution in order to reach a consensus, we don't want this turning into a never ending back and forth thing, and it doesn't seem likely to resolve on it's own. 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding direktor and the ANI report I made on him
Well, just to tell you that I have some doubts about the problem being solved because I don´t see User:DIREKTOR acknolledging any wrongdoing regarding me and that he will respect my right of me not wanting him interfering with my talk page. He donne it in the past and he donne it again. I was also mentioning in the report another issue regarding one article that by your intervention ended completely ignored. Since I have been doing reports of wrongdoings of that particular user, reports those that you have, unfortunatelly, been eficiently discrediting (at least the last two), I want just to tell you that in case of having further disrupting behavior from behalve of direktor on my talk page, I will find you responsable of not having prevented it, and even have contributed to it, by using adjectives such as "ridiculous" for my report on him. I will also remind you that your recent explication (found |here) for your unjustified acusations towards me at my previos |ANI report where you were saying that me removing and restoring another users comment was equal to |this were not very satisfactory to me, and I think that any person would easily come to a conclusion that without any evidence, an apologies would be the most correct procedure for the one that made the (incorrect) acusation.

Regarding your advice where you recomend "us" avoiding eachoder, I will just like to remind you that it has not been me, in any of those cases, that had attacked, or taken any other form of dialogue to their direction, but it has been right the oposite, it has been allways me receving their "kind" edits on my talk page. If you bother to check, you will also find that all my recent editing on their talk pages has been only to alert them about the ANI reports. By that, you can easily see that your advice is unecessary to be adressed to "all" participants, but rather the ones I have been reporting in recent cases. Perhaps a more precise direction of your advices would even help me from being further confronted with this disruptive behavior, that is, in my opinion, being even encouradged by the wrong direction of your advices and judgments.

Anyway, apologising you for my long coment, I must confess to you that despite all, I feel much more protected for having all this rightfull complains of mine "on papper", so I can prevent some possible missunderstanding in the future. Also, despite your offensive opinion that my reports are "ridiculous", I apologise for finding that as the only possible way by now for preventing disruption and other vandal like behaviors on WP. I really hope any further reports on this will be unecessary, but by my previos experience, and by the outcome of some recent, I unfortunatelly can just say that I expect more objectivity in the future. In case of that not being possible, you can allways allow other administrators to take care of the reports you consider "ridiculous" so you don´t have to spent your time on them. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To summarize, FkpCascais really really really thinks I should be banned from enWiki for ever and ever until the end of time, and he's prepared to write as many essays on the subject as is necessary! :)) (Sorry for adding to this, couldn't resist... :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Iordanis_777 --> Customizer_2010
I'm writing to you and to the other admins that denied my appeal to inform you.Below i paste the messange i sent to redvers because he didn't answer me.So i ask you the same thing.Thank you.Customizer 2010 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Redvers goodmorning.I'm writing here not to evade my block but i couldn't do something different.So,I asked in the greek wikipedia to be renamed and they renamed me and for the reason that i had a unified log in accounts were made (automaticly?) in the wikis i had the unified log in including the en.wiki.So if you want you can redirect my user page with the user name iordanis_777 to my user page with the user name customizer_2010 and block that page as well.But i don't want my old page because it has my name.you can block the new one and have the templates with the blockage and the denied appeals copy pasted to the new one if there is a problem.Thank you.Customizer 2010 (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that i write this to you is that i don't want to be acused for puppetiring and/or for evading my block.Customizer 2010 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

user:B9 hummingbird hovering RfC
Hi,

Just came across this. is this presently live and awaiting third party evidence? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did the "basic construction" but it needs to be fleshed out a bit more. My interaction with B9 was a while ago, but when I saw that the same issues I encountered with him 18 months ago were still ongoing, it seemed an RFC was in order. Anything you care to add to it would be welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look around. I was pleasantly surprised to find that you'd made this easier by finding my first ANI post of the issue for me. :) Certainly if nothing much has changed since then (and it's a fairly easy pattern to spot) then we definitely have a problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But the topic is
Writing Stories isn't encyclopedic. You declined speedy, but certainly there must be some speedy criteria for someone writing nonsense, isn't there? &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try and clarify. The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately narrow in their scope. the reason for this is to insure that only uncontroversial deletions are made without discussion. Being non-encyclopedic is a not one of the criteria as it is too open to interpretation. Patent nonsense is defined as writing that can't be comprehended, where the intention is unclear. So if the article said "writing stories is like a bedpan mixed with a mousetrap as long as you don't add to much corn syrup" or if, as I have seen a few times, it just said something like "sdjjvojenfvonwrtvlnwrtviunwivunerfivunwr" then it would undeniably qualify. Speedy deletion based on WP:NOT has been discussed and ejected several times. Admins are expected to adhere rather rigidly to the criteria, it is often a sticking point in requests for adminship, so we can't let articles be "shoehorned" into criteria that they don't quite fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Additional_CSD_criteria &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Interchange88/Tyriontalk
Is this (User:Interchange88/Tyriontalk) proper on Wikipedia? I checked Forum but I don't see any specific guideline against it. Seems like an abuse of resources to me, though. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Interchange88/Tyriontalk. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I know. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why delete the images?
I don't understand. The files that I uploaded had nothing to do with the discussion pages that I set up, which I willfully proposed for deletion in cooperation with you. Those images were test images for my sandbox, which you might as well delete also since you're on such a spree. Please explain why you deleted the images. -- 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they were maps, flags, etc from a country that does not exist, and they were not being used in any meaningful fashion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host or a place for doing things not related in any way to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They were being used on a sandbox page. They are simply a medium of experimenting with country articles without actually having to write about a country. How do you know that it was "not being used in any meaningful fashion" on Wikipedia? When I mentioned that you might as well delete it, I was sarcastic, and I apologize. I personally do believe sarcasm is vain anger, but, in fact, I was almost angry. I don't understand how it harms anyone, anyway.
 * I stand behind those deletions, all of them. Your claims are difficult to believe, you don't need to upload your own images for editing tests, as you well know since you had many other images attached to this fake article. If you wish to contest my actions take it to deletion review. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was referring to the page with an uppercase "S". However, I realize that this argument is futile, since I have learned of various other places where I can experiment with wiki markup without Big Brother watching over me. Is there any way to retrieve the code for the page so I can transfer it to a different wiki?-- 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Please answer.
 * I have a mental condition that makes it difficult for me to assist people who make backhanded accusations that I'm some sort of fascist. It's a real problem on the internet, where thoughtless people sometimes hurl around such accusations in an effort to dramatize what are really fairly minor issues. Try browsing Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles for someone who does not share my unfortunate condition. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. But please, you yourself have stated that you wish to stay "in the top three" levels of the pyramid (Although I mayhave broken the rule as well!). Anarchy is what it's called.-- 20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

N.W.A
Beeblebrox, I would suggest another semi-protection of the N.W.A page, as there has been repeated editing with little or no purpose other than vandalizing -- some of it was diminutive and only spotted by me by chance, but spread over the entire article nonetheless. Thanks. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you a fan of odd edit patterns?
Don't waste your time if you're busy, but...Here's an interesting pattern: Special:Contributions/Huntsmat, Special:Contributions/Elecesha, Special:Contributions/Swim1ark, Special:Contributions/Danalhotho. All accounts created within moments of each other. Are we witnessing a college Wiki course in action? (Look at the name of their personal sandboxes.) None of them have caused real damage, just test edits they revert themselves. I've just never seen this pattern before. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right hat they are all in a class. I sent two of them notices about testing in article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of How to grow green veggies
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 21:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)