User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 28

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Policy. Looks like you would be willing help Bishonen with this. I think all conditions are met.--Elvey (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Early archiving
I noticed that, in November, you simultaneously removed a tag and archived the related discussion. If your behavior was procedural, I think it was premature and has now had the effect of implying that you "contested" the proposal. If you were indeed against the proposal, then you deserve a finger-wagging for stifling conversation with a premature archive in a way that superficially appeared to be merely procedural. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The merge tag was added to the article here]. That's May 19th 2010. No actual proposal for merging was made on the talk page at that time. Fast forward to October of this year. You made a comment and the person who added the tag replied. More than a month later I removed that tag and archived that page. How anyone could think that it was premature is a bit obscure to me, so your "finger wagging" is a bit misplaced from where I am sitting. For the record I have no opinion whatsoever on the actual merge proposal. While I can't say two comments over a period of two and a half years constitutes a consensus there is also a lack of consensus against the merger so instead of complaining to me I suggest you review WP:SILENCE and WP:SOFIXIT as they both seem to apply to this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello?
I see you're back. Are you going to consider my request here?--Elvey (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(Belated} Barnstar
It's a little late, but I've been meaning to give this to you for starting up the FZ project:

ComputerGeek3000
I think you jumped the gun just a bit. He was originally blocked by copyright violations. When he returned, he started by posting fair-use images of living people, but with correct sourcing and copyright information. Once I pointed out the problem with images of living people, he stopped, and every subsequent image was of dead people. He was clearly listening to warnings and modifying his behaviour to take them into account.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for just going by the warnings. I'll have another look. I'm still concerned about the utter lack of communication though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw that block-unblock thing. Kww is right up to that point, which is also the reason I didn't block again. The reason I gave him that final warning was because of his last upload: he first uploaded a non-free image of a deceased person, with correct attribution and everything, but it happened to be from a commercial agency, so it had to be deleted as F7. Innocent mistake, so far. But he then re-uploaded the same image and changed the authorship attribution to "unknown", as if trying to circumvent the rule with a falsehood, so that's basically another deliberate copyright violation, in my book. I'll be happy to leave it up to you how to further deal with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping they will get the point from my unblock message that when they are not sure what to do they should ask for help instead of guessing or worse, lying. It is possible they will manage to do that but I am not holding my breath. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom Reform Party
You are an admin and you should know better than engage in personal attacks like this one (especially the edit summary). Please redact. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence of his dishonesty is manifest right there on that very page for all to see, as well as at his candidate page for the recent arbcom election. If he is going to be the leader of this useless organization he will need to be able to face that his actions will be criticized. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read the opening paragraph of WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Criticism is one thing, but giving your post the summary "Oh, and you are a liar" is not criticism, it is a personal attack. Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem in this case is that the "content" is the party itself, which is being run by a person who has shown a staggering pattern of WP:IDHT behavior along with outright dishonesty. The content and the contributor are more or less the same thing in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
Above page is proposed to delete again in Nov 2012

Here are the comments by users Jsorens > Keep 175.157.37.73 > Please Keep Shu-sai-chong > Keep MediaJet > Keep 131.107.0.81 > Keep obi2canibe > Not improved  Sue Rangell > The result was KEEP.

Can you please re iterate tags put by user self for this page. No one mentioned problems in this version and all agreed result was Keep from previous Keep and improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.32 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't understand what it is you want me to do. I closed a previous AFD on this article back in August but otherwise have had no editorial involvement with it. Administrators do not have any special authority over actual article content. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is your involvement to the article. Here is the discussion you used to put tags to the page and result was Keep and Improve. Here is the latest discussion about the page and most of the people appreciated the content and one person said this need improvements. The result was just Keep. I don't want you to go inside the content or the article. Just look at the latest discussion and agreed result considering your tags (neutrality,grammar, structure, point of view,expert on the subject). Then can you please double check whether you want to keep tags introduce by your self. Even participants collectively concluded page is improved your feedback is important since you are the person who introduced tags. Thanks


 * I introduced the tags as a result of the consensus arrived at at the discussion in August. Since consensus can change it would be more appropriate to discuss this with users who are actually involved with this article, which I have not been watching in the interim, to determine if there is a consensus now that it has been sufficiently improved and the tags are no longer applicable. You could also pursue some form of dispute resolution if you are unable to resolve this issue amongst yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I can't understand is you put tags as a result of the consensus ( Keep and Improve ) arrived at the AFD discussion in August. So why you reluctant to re consider your tags considering result of the consensus (Keep) of latest AFD discussion happened during November ? If consensus of AFD can be used to introduce tags why a consensus of 100% same AFD discussion can't be used to remove tags ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.16 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag were introduced by you. You must able to use same algorithm or what ever facts you considered when tagging the page to re consider tags are required. Others don't know why you made these tags and what algorithm used for tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.160.252 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. Added the tags as a result of the close of the previous discussion. I have not been monitoring the article in the meantime and I am not interested in becoming involved in it now. like everyone else here I am a volunteer and self-assign what work I do. I don't take assignments from you or anyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you say you are not interest about this article it is ok. But if you edited something you are a party of a dispute. I will create a dispute resolution to remove tags in which I may add you as a party.

I created a dispute resolution discussion on Here. You may participate to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.165.18 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with a certain users vandalism and talking style?
It seems that you know him, as you've reported him using socks years before, so I would like to ask you if you're familiar with his older incarnations or talking style. I do not know where he operates, so I can't check anything back then. From the list of people who report his socks on sock investigation page, most users who have dealt with him more than once have retired. The current suspected sock has respond to my message. Can you take a look at and tell me what you think? There's also an ongoing investigation of whether Redcoyote18 is Bambifan101's sock here, and a CU says that the physical location is quite different. We're still waiting for more opinion from another CU at the moment, but more entry from someone familiar with him will be appreciated. If Redcoyote18 is indeed innocent, like, a good faith but misguided/disagreeing editor, I would want to give him a fair chance. May I have your opinion in this regard? Anthonydraco (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been a very long time and I'm not sure I would be able to say one way or the other, but I will have a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I am seeing I don't think it is him. Although he has certainly been known to alter his targets and style in the past this seems like just some other hard-headed person. I could elaborate on my reasoning by email if you like, I'd rather not get too detailed here, just in case. Either way they are probably headed for a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But there's no need to do it via email. I've added the link to your response to the sockpuppet investigation page. More than one user, including me, suspect that a new user is the case. The spelling's different. Once I learned that this user's location is quite different from Bambifan101, I asked around. Gotta give this user a fair chance. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bears. Grrrrrrr.
Hey, Beeblebrox. I'm wondering whether this was such a good idea. The page has 229 watchers, which should be more than adequate to ensure that valid edit requests don't languish. There have been six edit requests over the past six months—not exactly what I'd call a "high number". Five of the six requests were answered the same day; the sixth, which required a fair amount of thought, was answered within two days. The most recent request (the one that brought me to the article for the first time ever) probably would have been accepted had it been posed as a pending edit, and it might well have been left unmodified, which would have been unfortunate. If you'll notice, what the user requested was less than what was optimal, and less than what I did. If it ain't broke. . . imho. Rivertorch (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen so far most PC edits are being reviewed within one hour so it is hoped this will encourage users to submit edits. if it doesn't work it can be changed back to semi easily enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical that Bear is the sort of article that would benefit from PC, being of the top-level, heavily watched persuasion. I had hoped it would be applied more conservatively, specifically to solve demonstrated problems that under-watched pages are having under semi. Anyway, I guess it's fitting somehow that you're the one to PC the first PCed article on my watchlist. (I actually mean that in a a nice way, believe it or not.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned as well that it was under PC during the trial and was put back under semi when the trial was over. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Around
Are you around? You really  can  06:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you mean in general or right this second, but the answer to both is "sort of". Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool - would you please remove my rollbacker right - I don't need it an it seems to affect twinke in a net loss sort of way. Thanks - You  really  can  06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you Beeblebrox - You  really  can  06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, now that you mention it I have been having trouble with twinkle lately. But rollback is automatic in the admin toolkit, I don't think I can get rid of it without turning in the whole set. Maybe some tech nerd has a fancy script for this... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would consider this removal to be somewhat "under a cloud", as I'd just warned YRC for inappropriate rollback use prior to this request, which YRC removed just prior to making this request from you: . I find the timing...interesting, to put it mildly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I consider rollback to be a more or less worthless user right. Since YRC requested it be removed because it was interfering with Twinkle (which has rollback included in it and can be used by anyone who has registered an account) it seems fairly unimportant either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, just wanted to let you know what's going on. By the way, I happen to be a tech nerd, would you have some interest in a .js that suppresses rollback for admins? I'm not sure if that's possible or what interference it would cause with Twinkle, but if it's acting up, it might be worth a few lines of code. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not entirely sure rollback is the issue. Twinkle rollback sometimes does not work for me, but I have also been having issues with its protection function. I suspect it is related to the tool not being optimized for iPad, which is how I have been editing much of the time lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Userfy deleted
Could you please userfy the deleted version of List of defensive gun use incidents for me? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. see User:Gaijin42/List of defensive gun use incidents Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap
I have not got to the bottom of the block yet, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence Pen is not a suck-puppeteer in any way that is significant. These claims were made based on a number of misunderstandings, which reflect badly on us as a community. As I say I am not exonerating Pen completely in regard to other matters, because I have not investigated them (and maybe never will) but so far he comes up, if not squeaky clean, at least clean enough, and as they say "more sinned against than sinning". Rich Farmbrough, 05:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I don't really know myself, but I was under the impression they had repeatedly bragged about socking. However I also understand Penyulap has a somewhat unusual sense of humor and overall style of communication. At the moment I'm not sure it really matters given the bizarre rant submitted as an unblock request.  Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of Ucycoin
You blocked for having a "promotional username". Can you please explain the reasoning for that block? — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the reason by examining the old revision of their sandbox. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Laina
Please unsalt. I want to redirect it to Overly Attached Girlfriend. CallawayRox (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Message from ComputerGeek3000's IP address
Dear Beeblebrox, JeremyA blocked my account for violating copyright policy again, but I didn't upload no more images on Wikipedia and I continue to edit without violating copyright policy, and I read the Copyright violations, Copyrights, and Non-free content project pages and I fully understand the copyright policy on Wikipedia and I did what you told me, not to upload no more images on Wikipedia and that is what I did. 69.209.202.155 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Note that Computergeek3000 has been found socking on Commons, using sock accounts to upload the images there and linking to them here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also note that block evasion is the surest path to not being unblocked. please use the unblock template as described in the notice on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

John Evangelist Stadler
Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've removed it because inclusion in The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to prove notability. If you disagree, you may want to consider taking it to the Notqability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and my apologies
Thanks for your informative help. And my apologies for my ignorance having caused me to unwittingly break Wiki rules.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

3 year old edit
Hello, Beeblebrox! When I read a WP article I have a habit of checking it's evolution throughout the years via the page history, and I sometimes do this on its talk page, too. Which brings me to an edit you made 3 years ago. In this edit, you removed a large chunk of a talk page with the edit summary "archiving/tagging" but I can't find an archive. Was this accidental? If so, could you please create the archive? Forgive me for pestering. Rgrds. --64.85.214.103 (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just tried to do so, and got a spam filter message: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: .associatedcontent.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." So, somewhere in that chunk of text is a link to that website that is being blocked. I had to redact the prefixes just to reprint the warning here on my talk just now! I vaguely remember this now, I searched the text but could not find the link. I could swear i also remember explaining that on the talk page at the time, but I don't see any such edit now. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I got it to work: Talk:Cult of personality/Archive 1, but now I don't know what to do with it. Could you make sure the talk page is linked to the archives properly and check that I did it right.  The offending link was in the first sentence of the George W. Bush section (the text in italics, I replaced the "." with " ").  Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.183 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice work, looks good. I added the relevant tags to the archive and talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

MFD on Rich Farmbrough's blog
Beeblebrox, I see you closed this as Keep. Per the policy NOTBLOG  blogs are not allowed on  user pages, so how on earth is this a keep ? Policy supersedes votes, so policy should have been carried out (No I'm not yelling at you....I'm curious ....that's all )   KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "policy supersedes votes" I don't where you got that idea but it is dead wrong.  Policy is meant to reflect the community's will, not dictate to it. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making and it seems abundantly clear that consensus did not support your deletion reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Policy indeed does  | for example ... it's stated here  | here too... in fact, it stated near the bottom that policy superces consensus - and that's from an admin, | and here too

| yet another admin emphatically stating that policy overrides consensus. I won't add more here, but the main point of all of these links are to show that policy has and does override consensus. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If policy trumped consensus, there'd be no point in xFD discussions. Simply apply policy, right?  Nope.  No point in pursuing this Kosh, it's a dead end and all you're going to end up doing is looking bitter about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Those links all go to the edit window, not specific edits, so I don't know what in particular you are referring to. If you wish to challenge the outcome of the MFD you can pursue a deletion review. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He already has here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes and according to the timestamps he did so before even my first reply here, yet he did not bother to inform me of it. charming. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, hence my note. Nothing to worry about, but poor behaviour nevertheless...  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So..... you asked me where I got my notion from that policy superceded votes, and I gave you links, and your response was not to read them? Great. Next time  read . I pointed you to three discussions on ANI board where that very thing was stated.

+ Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted List of Bell TV channels, please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Wikipedia would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)>br> −  −   −  1.) Was User:Kelly on then 7th indent down on [] −  stating:  −  I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) −   −   −  2.) Was ADMIN User:Jclemens once again on the AN board  stating, once again , that policy superceded consensus: −  −  While yes, the act of making something deletable and then nominating it for deletion is bad form, that's not the case here. The thing that made this (and every other possible non-free image) deletable wasn't consensus or the presence or absence of the image in an article. If a free image exists all non-free images are off the table and to be deleted from the encyclopedia, period. Doesn't matter what consensus is, nor does it matter how much better the non-free image might or might not be: It's not up for debate. Between two non-free images or two free images, by all means let the debate continue in a polite and aboveboard manner. In this case, however? Nuke the non-free image--there's no debate to be had, just a reiteration of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC) −  −   −  3.) Yet another admin weighted in User:Gonzo_fan2007 ion this AN posting ] and he stated:  −   −  People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)  −   −  Once again stating that policy trumps consensus. So it's not just my word, it's at least 2 admins and one user. −   KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By your own logic WP:CONSENSUS proves you wrong in its first sentence. Don't yell at me to read when you are the one too lazy or incompetent to post actual diffs. Actually, just go away, I have had it with your thick-headed nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really ?    Actually, it isn't just my logic.   I based my argument on the arguments of three other users, two of whom are admins,  so now what you're really saying is those other three uers (and I ) are wrong and you're right.  O.K, if you really believe that, fine.     21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Bell TV channels
Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted List of Bell TV channels, please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Wikipedia would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ See User:True Tech Talk Time/List of Bell TV channels. Please be sure to properly attribute any content that is reused elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as compromised account
I have blocked this account as apparently compromised - the latest series of edits are not typical behaviour for the editor in question. I will be opening a thread on WP:AN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The account is most definitely not compromised. --Rschen7754 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Please unblock.  I see an editor frustrated by another, but no compromise of account.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking kidding me B? It is me, not compromised, and I have often told thick-headed people who refuse to stop posting to my talk page to fuck off. See User:Beeblebrox/fuck off, a page all about how I reserve the right to do so. Please undo this ridiculous block right away. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have mail, Beeblebrox. Please respond. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Like the others, I don't think this is a compromised account, but I do think Beeblebrox has flown off the handle in an unbecoming manner. While blocking for being a compromised account isn't the right call, I'm not at all sure that we could hold to a civility policy of any kind while not dealing with someone who calls others "petty fascist idiot"s. Beeblebrox, dial it back. Please? I know you don't entirely buy into the civility thing, but consider that calling Kosh names is no more likely to make him do what you want than punching him in the face, and significantly less likely to do so than just not talking to him anymore. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. I care not a whit for the civility questions, as blocking someone because you think they could never be angry and therefore must be someone else entirely is pretty bad. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm in my role as a CheckUser that the edit was not made by a compromised account. Tiptoety talk 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My decision to block as potentially compromised was an WP:AGF reaction to the wholly out-of-character personal attacks made from the account. That type of phrasing towards any editor - whether in the middle of an argument or not - is not typical behaviour for Beeblebrox.  If CU says it was not compromised, then I'll believe it, and I'm sorry ... I'm going to be absolutely shocked instead, it appears (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AGF my ass B. All i wanted was for a thick headed person who completely misunderstands what Wikipedia is and how it works to quit posting nonsensical crap to my talk page. He chose to try and war the section back open, so I turned up the volume to try and make my position more clear. Nothing more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I too am very confused by the use of "AGF" here. You assumed good faith that Beeblebrox couldn't possibly be that pissed off, so it must have been someone else? To remove so much agency from someone seems insulting on its own, let alone the consequences it had. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I just hat the thing and rollback any further comments --Rschen7754 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to Bish I got an email from UTRS in response to an unblock request and another from an arb making sure I hadn't gone crazy. If you weren't referring to one of those I guess try again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I happened to catch sight of your famous all-caps edit summary just after you posted it, and tried twice to contact you via the wikimail feature, just before and just after you were blocked. I got the "Your e-mail has been sent" screen both times, but something technical clearly went wrong nevertheless, because I never got the confirming copies to my own address. I was just about to ask if they reached you; clearly not. Anyway, all I wanted was to express my sympathies with the sentiment in your inappropriate edit summary, suggest you cool down, offer to revdel your edit… stuff like that, pretty obvious and of course all moot by now, along with my offer to unblock you, which was in my second message. Large trout to BWilkins for unnecessarily escalating this with the silly "compromised" idea, which could easily have been checked (as it was). And if you feel you need something like that yourself, Beeblebrox, you may regard yourself as being in receipt of Darwinbish's NPA template. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Allrighty. I would guess the email fail has to do with the big server migration going on this week. I'm fine though, really. I'm used to folks freaking out on the (very few) occasions I have felt it necessary to cuss someone out, but I can't say I expected what happened today, and I certainly don't need arbcom all up in my grill, but I assume this will all blow over and at some point Kosh will finish digging his own grave. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite likely. But first, he gets a free go at shouting FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT at someone who annoys him. He will be blocked of course, but then quickly unblocked when he screams "but look what happened to the admin who said exactly the same thing to me". Just saying. Moriori (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really, since an arbitrator has now zapped the edit summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

hey ...
Sorry to see ya had a bad day Beebs. I don't know the details (don't need to know) .. but I know you're one of the good guys, so I hope it all chills for ya. Try not to be too pissed at BW .. he's a good guy too - just things spinning out of control is all. Have a beverage of your choice, and smile when ya wake up in the morning. Cheers. — Ched : ?  23:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've already popped by his talk page with a "no hard feelings" message. I know he thought he was doing the right thing. My wife is at the store buying fajita supplies and beer as we speak. Although, funny as it may seem, I really was not too upset, I just consider what I did trying to send a message to someone who didn't seem to get it when I sent the same message with less harsh language. Others clearly did not see it that way, such is life. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was all a bit unexpected. Anyway, welcome back, and enjoy the beer! RashersTierney (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock review request
About the thread at AN. After seeing the user(s)'s responses and the community's position, I think that it is safe to say unblocks are in order despite other concerns. You've listed yourself as the reviewing admin and I do not wish to step on your toes, so I'll let you handle it as you see fit. Salvidrim!   &#9993;  05:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me, with all the other chaos here the last 24 hours I hadn't been giving that situation much attention. I have closed the thread and unblocked the accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

On another matter
Hi. I don't think we've talked but I've seen you around. I wonder if I might ask your opinion on a couple of things. (1) I never swear or engage in ad hominem on article talk pages. I almost never swear on project pages and, though I sometimes discuss the behaviour of others on project pages, I never engage in ad hominem on them. I say whatever I like on user talk pages but expect others to not address me when I tell them not to, and extend the same courtesy. (It pisses me off heartily when people tell me what I can and can't say or talk about on user talk pages.) (2) I'm worried about the way BWilkins uses his block button. Do you have a view on that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013


 * Hi Anthony. And hello to anyone else looking for any sort of summary statement from me about my actions and block yesterday. Here it is and I don't plan to speak on this matter any further unless there is some unexpected new development.


 * I almost never swear here either, somebody really has to be acting the fool before I resort to it. While I believe most folks don't find it to be that big of a deal, there is an extremely vocal minority that will freak out when anyone uses a "bad word" for any reason. Of course what I did yesterday ended up going a bit beyond that. For the record, I would do exactly the same thing again, up to and including the first "fuck off" message. I did and do believe it is every user's right to disengage from a conversation on their own talk page that has degraded past the point of usefulness. Any person who  keeps posting after being asked to stop is basically trolling and I will always support the right of any user to tell someone who is behaving like that to fuck off. They need to told to fuck off since they are not responding to normal language asking them to stop. But, clearly, I crossed the line yesterday and yes, I did post an angry all-caps attack on another person in an edit summary. Whether I had the "moral right" to do that or not it was and is against site policy to ever engage in name calling. And that is as it should be, if everyone behaved like that all the time we would never get anything done and a lot of valued users would leave. So, short version, I think I did make a mistake, but just one. Everything up to that point I stand behind 100%.


 * As to your concern about how B uses the block button, in this case he was in error about what was going on and he probably should have quietly spoken to a CU before just blocking, but he was acting out of a genuine belief that my account had been compromised and a genuine desire to protect WP from harm, and I was only blocked for nine minutes so I can't say I see a real problem there. If there are other block actions he has made you have other issues with I would suggest you discuss them with him directly. He's pretty easy to talk to and I count him among "the good guys" around here, he just sees things in a a slightly more black-and-white/right -vs- wrong light than I do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, wasn't BWilkins sitting at the table with us in DC? Do you think maybe he was pissed cause you ran off with those three Swedish chicks who knew men only from books? Drmies (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies apply to administrators?
This is a notification that I mentioned your name at the Village Pump -- Senra (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully accept that I may not be welcome here and I am genuinely sorry that I used your recent outburst as an example. It was sincerely not meant to be a personal attack. If I had looked, I am sure I could have found similar examples from others. However, on the basis of and, would you be willing to request a reversal of the revision deletion to place it back on the record? -- Senra (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like everyone knows what it said by now regardless. I'm not really in the mood to trouble the arbs about this but for the record it was User:Risker who did the revdel, If you want it undone that would be who you need to talk to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * -- Senra (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * While I get that a lot of people appreciate Beeblebrox's bluntness, I have to ask - Ritchie (and Beeb, I guess) - do you really intend to communicate here that what it "is" is that Kosh is literally a fascist idiot? Because that's what Beeblebrox said - he didn't stop at "fuck off"; rather, he called Kosh a very insulting thing as well. I just want to make sure you guys are aware that while "tell it like it is" might make sense for "fuck off" (which is basically a blunt, impolite "go away", not any character aspersion), it certainly doesn't for "fascist idiot" unless you're really arguing that that's what the other person is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more a comment that I find that Beeb's user essay tickles my sense of humour. 'Tis all. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks fot the award, and see my comments two sections up for what I hope is my final statement on this incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

block log barnstar
A bit late but fully qualifying - congratulations and thank you for your lengthy contributions

User:DileepKS69
Hi - I'd also been concerned about the phrase "except as a regular user", but took this to mean "as a reader", rather than for editing purposes. I was going to refer this to AN tonight, as it seems that some of the suspected socks may be meat-puppets instead (not that that's any better), but if the user agrees not to meat-puppet either, I think there may be grounds for an unblock here. Indef does not necessarily mean life. What do you think?  An  optimist on the  run!  17:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, i suppose that could be what they meant. Review too many unblock requests and it can make you a little overly suspiscious. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've raised a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  An  optimist on the  run!  22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks
Beeblebrox, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding User:DragoLink08's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch for three years. Your input is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Formatting issue
Nothing at all urgent here, if there are others looking for help with real issues please help them first. This is the sort of thing for which I have no talent. On my user page, I have my admin stats posted as well as a "five pillars" sidebar. I am wanting to put them in the same section, with the admin stats on the left and the pillars on the right. I've previewed several possible ways to do this and none of them seem to work. Need a format/coding expert to sort it out. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. While I'm doing it; want me to remove that table of contents? Seems a bit useless. m.o.p  22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that would be great. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Open to fine-tuning if you'd like, just say the word! m.o.p  22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like switching the order of the templates ( &rarr;  ) would work too if that was not what you had in mind. HueSatLum 23:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That almost got it, I tweaked it one more time and now it looks more or less like what I was wanting (what do you know, OI do know something about formatting) Thanks guys!. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe
Well,, but you're not quite there yet. It should be "summarily". M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * doh. I love my iPad for most things, but I swear the spellchecker changes its own settings once in a while or just decides it doesn't want to work sometimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Any point in mentioning WP:IAR in your excellent 'Fuck off' essay?
I've just read your excellent User:Beeblebrox/fuck off. I was wondering would there be any point in you adding for the benefit of the somewhat pedantic that your behavior is fully in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia rules, specifically WP:IAR? Tlhslobus (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it, but it seems to me that most people either completely agree with it or think I am an ogre for saying it is ever appropriate to use a bad word. I'm not sure policy based arguments will do any good in changing that perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Having now read quite a bit of the row at village pump (before eventually getting bored with it), it seems to me that a lot of people there simply take it for granted that both 'Fuck off' and your essay are violations of all sorts of rules (but mainly WP:CIV), whereas they seem to me at least arguably to be well within the scope of WP:IAR, which nobody there mentions. So, quite likely due to my ignorance, inexperience, and general foolishness, I thought it might be useful to point it out (get your retaliation in first, as Welsh rugby coaches allegedly advise). But as you understand these things a great deal better than I do, I would strongly advise against giving any weight whatsoever to anything I say :) All the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad words are fine (albeit sometimes slightly uncivil) unless they're directed at or are used as a descriptor for another editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, context is very important, as I unfortunately recently provided a bad example of myself. But there seem to be many here who take a more simplistic approach, feeling that any use of  a "bad word" anywhere, ever, is automatically unacceptable. Oddly, I have even seen those who argue that this is a workplace and we should talk as if we are in a workplace. I have been part of the workforce for about 25 years and have worked in a wide variety of jobs, from construction to restaraunts to the cenus beureau to libraries, and have never once found myself in a workplace where four letter words were forbidden and never used in any context.
 * As a matter of fact the "fuck off" essay is modeled after how many, including myself, who work in the service sector deal with problematic customers who need to leave. You never start with "fuck off" but if "hey buddy you need to leave" doesn't get the job done you might have to go therre. A few years ago I had a recurring problem with a group who called themselves "the wrecking crew". They were a small group of drunks who sometimes used our service. They caused too many problems and we had to throw them out, but they were soooo drunk all the time that they kept forgetting they had been  thrown out. Some new person would not know them and would not know not to provide services to them, and I would find out and have to kick them out again. Eventually  it got to the point where I was openly cursing and swearing at them on sight, and after doing that about three times, they finally understood that they really were kicked out, it wasn't just for the night or until they sobered up because they never did sober up, and I was not going to just wink at it if they behaved, which they never did either.  Would i have rather not felt compelled to handle it that way? Of course. If they had just left the first time they got kicked out there may have been some chance that if they ever got their collective act together they would be welcome again, but coming back in again and again after they had been thrown out blew any chance of that.
 * Ok, I've gone on longer than I intended but there it is. I feel that refusing to leave someone else's space when asked to do so is one of the rudest things a person can do and not worthy of the politeness we all usually exhibit. The person doing that is declaring their lack of respect for you by refuisng to leave. I know, it's different here, you can just hit "rollback" and be quiet, but I am not inclined to do that in all cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've probably used similar words on my own talkpage in similar circumstances B2 ... just usually absent the NPA :-) Trust me, I know it's not black and white, and fully understand the timeline that led to the situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Skyblueshaun
I'll reply at User talk:Skyblueshaun for completeness if that's OK? GiantSnowman 17:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * sure. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudsy
And I thought that Lin and I were the only people to have played a launderette! (We had a need to practise some stuff for an approaching gig and she had need of a launderette as well, so we played in the launderette. And got invited back by the owner, as so many people had come in and then gone quickly to bring their washing... (This was in Liverpool, either Aigburth or Toxteth.) You gotta save that article. Peridon (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Update
Shouldn't Help:CentralAuth be updated. On the picture that includes all of Wikimedia's Projects does not include WikiVoyage and it needs to be updated. Thanks User:Superdadsuper —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, I guess so, but I'm not sure why you thought I would be the person to talk to about it. Actually WMF logos are kind of a special case as they are copyrighted but obviously intended to be used on WMF sites. I think the foundation would need to at least approve any updated version of the image and creating such an image  is not really my area of expertise. So I guess I would suggest contacting the WP:IMAGELAB for help with creating it. I would guess that User:Philippe (WMF) would know who to talk to about whatever restrictions there might be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Milepost2008cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Milepost2008cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the di-fails NFCC tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dubro guy
You think it's severe enough to just go straight to UFAA?

My personal vibe is that he's really this guy - a bad mob editor who likes to make grandiose claims. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:REALNAME says that such users will sometimes be blocked until they prove their identity by email, so it is a bit of a grey area. If they were vandalizing or something like that I think we would go for the block, but in this case I think asking them to contact info-en@wikimedia.org to discuss it with the volunteer team that deals with this sort of thing might be the best move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, hold on, I'm obviously not paying attention here. If you think the issue is sockpuppetry I would say file an WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that concern I have gone ahead and blocked. If they are not really him they should not be able to convince the OTRS team that they are, but a sock investigation is still not a bad idea, a WP:CHECKUSER might uncover some "sleeper" accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seward Highway to Glenn Highway Connection
The "Highway 2 Highway" study process which began around 2005 or 2006 is officially dead by this point. It owed a lot of its existence to Mark Begich, and to a lesser extent on the notion that work would begin anytime soon on the Knik Arm Bridge. I haven't looked up what Dan Sullivan has said or not said on the subject, but clearly there was no desire on his part to continue pursuing it to the extent Begich did. To complicate matters further, this is another topic which won't be covered properly until someone is willing to dig up historical material (pre Highway 2 Highway process) buried in the shelves of the UAA or Loussac libraries. I haven't had a whole lot of time for the library lately, so I don't know what I could find locally. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  20:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Aww, and just this morning I passed up the chance for a "there and right back in the same day" trip to Anchorage." Then again that doesn't sound like an expedition that would have left me much time to explore a library anyway. This strikes me a s a great but expensive idea, the kind of thing that used to get done fairly easily in Alaska, but times have changed... I don't know if you listen to APRN much but I have noticed lately that the "Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority" is doing the bulk of the underwriting for Alaska News Nightly, with nearly every break on the show featuring one of their promo spots (or whatever euphemism  the public radio folks use for ads) talking about the Knik Arm Bridge as if it is right on track and will be built any minute now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Milepost has recognized Tudor and Muldoon Roads as a bypass route for decades. I didn't check as to exactly how far back.  However, I have come across an old plan (1961, to be exact) calling for a freeway connection paralleling that route.  This was before anything was built out that way, apart from a few homesteads and small residential subdivisions.  I also didn't check for how long this option was considered viable, but this was several years before the Totem Theatre was built, which itself was several years before Pete Zamarello began his real estate development career on the other end of Muldoon.  Once East Anchorage started building up, most of the plans concocted in the years before Highway 2 Highway called for the freeway to cut through the Chester Creek greenbelt and/or Merrill Field.  With the prevailing attitudes, I'm surprised that no one has thought of revisiting that.  They don't appear to have a problem with eradicating wooded areas because someone had the temerity to live in a tent rather than let a social worker live off of them, so what would be the big deal with a freeway?
 * I haven't listened too much to public radio lately. We don't necessarily have more of a choice in radio in Fairbanks, just more stations (three broadcasting companies run all the commercial stations, and they try to duplicate each other's formats as much as they possibly can).  As for your "choices", is KGTL still the Frank Sinatra station?  I'm guessing that KBBI has a bigger community impact, as well as carries more APRN programming than what we get here.  I haven't heard any deluge of KABATA underwriting, but I wouldn't be surprised.  The corporatization of public radio continues to be a source of complaint, with the management of APRN cited as the chief culprit. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit at Deletion policy
Please clarify for me the reasons why you believe that the essay Deletion by redirection represents an "extreme minority opinion." Nothing there seems that extreme to me, but maybe I'm missing something. To give you some more background and perspective on what I'm driving at, look at Articles for deletion/Warren (Porridge). Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "extreme" in this context is intended as a modifier of the word "minority" not the word "opinion". In other words, I do not believe this essay is representative of the mainstream of Wikipedia users and therefore should not be linked to within the actual text of a policy as if it were reflective of the broader community's view of the purpose and appropriate use of redirecting. I could see adding a link in a "see also" section or a navbox or something, but not within the actual text of the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Trout
Please watch your s, like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Userbox/User_Death_Note_3&diff=prev&oldid=537004095 this one] so you don't nominate [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Userbox/User_Death_Note_3&limit=500&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1 ~160 others' userpages] for deletion also. Thanks, -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Howzat? I've never added no include tags when MFDing and it's never been a problem before. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should use noinclude when tagging any page that gets transcluded or substituted, for any kind of deletion, etc. Especially if it's substituted, or else someone has to clean up after the mess... — This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP is funny that way. I've been contributing for about six years and never run into this problem before. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello there Can we nominate an article for fast deletion or proposed deletion which was proposed for deleting 2 years ago because of None-Notable and low quality and did not deleted because of the result of a voting? Specially if the creator couldn't add more reliable sources or reasons for Notablitiy. --Machinhead666 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If it has already been through a deletion discussion that is pretty much the only option for re-nominating it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you think about an article like this. It was nominated for deleteion in January 2011. After more than 2 years still the creator of the page couldn't add any sources to prove notability of this band, even the record label which was mentioned does not exist. --Machinhead666 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume the reason you are bringing this to me is that I closed the previous deletion discussion. If you are considering re-nominating it I would suggest you carefully read that discussion and be sure that you really can't find significant coverage in reliable sources regarding this band. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I just want to make sure that I'm doing right things. Machinhead666 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2
Not that I object too strenuously, but why did you end the discussion of the above RFC? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was reviewing requests for closure at WP:ANRFC. Most user RFCs are open for about thirty days.This one had been open for for nearly three months and did not appear to be making any forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Actually, progress was made. RIR toned down considerably for a time but recently has started to be disruptive again. His remarks in the Edit Summaries are much improved. I think you can consider this RFC as a success in that RIR is aware of his problem, so I think the system did work here. Thanks for your attention to this matter. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ -- the apparent conclusion is that no progress was made. The litigious exercise was a complete waste of a considerable amount of my time. Incivility was never the primary problem on the article (it was -- and still is -- tendentious editing and POV pushing), and George seems to be missing the larger point expressed in the summary of the RfC's closure. Since before the user conduct RfC was filed, I stated that ArbCom -- with closer scrutiny of all editors involved and a binding resolution -- would be the only remedy. I urge that we go the next step and put and end to this once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WMFN
And then the picture explaining my point is at your user talk page... I can't help but discuss something I think will become important to helping Wikipedia improve. I hope you can forgive me for that. And I desire quality discussion. I hope you can forgive me for that too. Considering the picture you have on your page, might you owe me a better response at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard? Biosthmors (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to help you understasnd that you are accomplishing nothing except to annoy other users and malke a spectacle of yourself. I hope you can forgive me for that. See, i can pull the humble pie act too. Your "aw shucks" affectations do not change the fact that you are badgering anyone who does not agree with you. I don't see how my comment was any worse than the one that preceeded it, which suggested that the user making the comment was too stupid to understand what the purpose of this new board is. Or for that matter, your comments to me where you attempted to put words in my mouth. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do understand I risk looking like I'm badgering others. I understood that before I was commenting, but your reminder helps emphasize it more. Thanks. I think you could have had a more civil way of saying it (and wouldn't my talk page have been the better place?), though. I'm sure Philosopher is not stupid. But thanks for noting your impression, because I don't want others to think I'm implying others are stupid (and I didn't understand how you thought I could possibly be attacking). I also don't understand how I attempted to put words in your mouth, in your impression. If you want to explain I'd be happy to reply here. Anyhow, best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A towel

 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
@''' Dipankan  Upgraded!  Tag me! ''' 11:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

wtf Beebs?
re: Don't get me wrong, there's some very legitimate questions in there, but holy crap dude. Talk about asking the "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions. Could ya maybe think about rewording that a bit? — Ched : ?  20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see your point. There are answers he could give to those questions that do not incriminate him at all. When a user has had more than ten RFAs I think it is fairly important to be blunt in questioning why they continue to run, and why they gave up so easily on so many previous runs. Not that you said I do, but I do not subscribe to the theory that we should tone it down if someone indicates they have a psychological condition. The vandals and trolls that they will be dealing wth if they become an admin certainly won't do that and it is important to know how they will handle such situations, and the only way we have to test their mettle is RFA itself. I am willing to be convinced here, but I would need to see answers as direct as my questions to sway me into supporting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I honestly do understand what you're saying, but I just don't think RfA should be some sort of "can you handle the heat" type of thing. You've been through the week of RfA hell, and I did it once too, so it's not like I'm clueless as to what that entails.  You accuse him of having a defeatist  attitude, and yet you have no insight as to why he withdrew.  You tell someone that they even fail to comprehend something?  I call bullshit.  Secret has been around for a long LONG time, and he KNOWS this project inside and out.  Don't you think most people would have given up and moved on by their seventh or eight RFA?  Really?  I'm sorry; there is merit in some of what you ask, but the way you ask it really sucks. Have you really gotten so cold and so hard that you've forgotten that there are real people with real feelings on the other side of that keyboard? — Ched :  ?  20:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I just want to make sure we are really talking to that person and not just a mask they put on to try and pass RFA. I really wan to know why they feel it is so important that they personally have the tools that they would subject themselves to this process a dozen times even though it has caused them to freak out again and again in the past.  If they don't feel my questions deserve a reply that's fair enough, but I am hoping to get an answer that shows what has really changed since the last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (tps) That actually made me laugh. But hey, Philosopher said this so it would seem you owe me an apology for this. I will take your humble pie served on Skype, if you please. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you did nothing wrong? Biosthmors (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't even deserve an answer to that. You come into this unrelated thread and act like you are talking about the same thing when all you want to do is taunt me and demand an apology. Well guess what? You ain't getting one. Now please leave me alone, I am tired of being badgered by you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well forgive me for coming off that way. I really would enjoy to make peace and be human and conciliatory and normal over Skype (and this should be my last message here for now unless you indicate the discussion is continuting) but I understand if you have no interest. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are so full of shit. Buttimg into an unrelated discussion and demanding I skype you an apology is in no way conciliatory Neither is posting again after I have asked you to stop. You seem to have a serious WP:IDHT issue, both here and at the MFD. And no, discussion is not ongoing and your reply is not needed or desired. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC).
 * I wasn't demanding an apology at all. I was going to apologize to you, in fact. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry for the troubles. Biosthmors (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to pretend to understand what the above is all about ... but Beebs - thanks for talking it out with me. I won't say that I disagree with you .. I just think it was/is unduly harsh.  Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On a only mildly related note, I know nothing of the RFA process, but I'm a big fan of Beeble's essay with moderation of course. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cayperl plateau
Thanks - I dithered whether to tag it G3 and wasn't quite sure enough, but I certainly don't disagree with your zapping it. It's annoying when something like that lingers for years while well-meaning people tidy it up and add categories and "unreferenced" tags but never think to check whether the whole thing is nonsense. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that some "power users" of WP:AWB had seen it not long after it was created and added tags and stuff to it without bothering to notice things like the fact that the Yukon is not in Alaska at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you monitoring my talk page?
Are you monitoring my talk page? If so, why?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Geez, ever hear of assuming good faith? I never took it off my watchlist after our recent interaction. Sorry if it is a problem for you that I reverted a meaningless edit and welcomed the newbie who made it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kind of an ironic point for you to be making it to me. But nonetheless point taken. Cheers.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Twinkle request
Hi, regarding your request WT:TW.... Do you think the same thing should be done for uw-coi-username? I think the use of this template is similarly problematical. For example, it's often issued to users who are also reported to UAA for blatantly advertising a company with the same name as their username. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know that we could do the exact same thing since that template is not used by Twinkle, but it would be a good idea to do something. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is in Twinkle. I think that, ironically, you couldn't find it because they tried to make it easier to find. Although most of the "Single issue warnings" are in alphabetical order, this one's in logical order, right under uw-username. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

VAndalism
i am s sbapathy i would like to be trained under you.you are a very experinced editor please guide me.Ssabapathy (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Beeblebrox is doing mentor requests right now, but if you click on the link I just gave you, you can find someone who is. Or, go to the Teahouse as listed on your talk page. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Angels (album)
Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability in 2008. The tag's still there and you may want to read over WP:Notability (schools) and WP:NOTABILITY and add the reasons for your concern to the Talk pg. Alternatively, you could take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or remove the tag if you are no longer concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations against Tokerdesigner
User:Tokerdesigner's defense text against new allegations by User:Mjpresson is archived at:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tokerdesigner/Archive&action=edit&oldid=538610229 Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Secret/recall
Considering the RFA, I want you to be one of the 10 to decide my recall. Thanks Secret account 01:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. But at the end of the day I find I am glad you passed and I find it unlikely you will need to be recalled. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The wind-up merchant
An unblockable with an reputation for tendentious editing, and extremely thorough grounding and familiarity with many of Wikipedia policies, decides he doesn't like some sort of trivially important formatting on a page, and changes it. Another editor, watching the page, changes it back and invites discussion on the talk page. The unblockable adds a large laundry list of policies (such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BRD, WP:V, you name it, they'll quote it) and the conversation goes back and forth over several pages. Eventually, the other editor gets so frustrated that they snap in response and tell the unblockable to "go and fornicate (or another word of choice) yourself", whereupon they are promptly blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. Attempts to explain that the unblockable provoked them fall on deaf ears, since the guide to appealing blocks requires they concentrate on their own behaviour. Meanwhile, a third user, watching all this, opens a discussion on ANI, and an administrator decides the unblockable was filibustering, so blocks them. After a huge superficially civil but otherwise unpleasant rant where the unblockable lists a massive laundry list of every policy under the sun against the blocking admin, the block is reverted "to avoid drama". Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DegenFarang
Hi. About ten months ago, you were involved in unblocking after he was indeffed for harassing other editors, particularly in poker related articles. Could you take a look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as I'm proposing an interaction ban between him and (but not necessarily vice versa) to try and avoid any more disruption from him. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just took a glance, when I unblocked him it was with a temporary topic ban from poker articles. That might be a better way to go than an interaction ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats
Should be working now.— cyberpower ChatOnline 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Newrichent
Thanks, man. Hey, it's almost March. Which month does the sun come up over there? Drmies (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Luckily I am not that far north (59 degrees latitiude). We are gaining about six minutes of daylight each day and are up to almost 10 hours. Apparently this was the signal for the Russian kids who live across the street from me to start working on their booming car stereo at eight o clock every morning.  The  love of thumping bass is not limited to large cities... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathy, Beeblebrox. I say you go out at night and burn their weed lot. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Doing what's right

 * Yea, I have this problem called "having ethics and actually trying to live them, not just say I have them." . Honestly, it has caused me real-life problems and ruined business relationships, but I still think it is worth it. Thank you for the star. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68
Would it be possible to restore his talkpage access? At the moment the argument is going round in circles because he can't contribute to it, which means people are ascribing motives to his conduct which can't be confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was writing a reply there at the same time you were posting this. short answer: no, because they continued outing and even added more details after being blocked for outing. They need to assure BASC that they understand and will abide by the outing policy, so it is up to BASC to make that decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree and have said as much at that page; however, thank you for your reply. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd like to see Cla68 get back to working on articles, I do understand and appreciate your position. Thank you for being so communicative.  The "email BASC myself" thing is above and beyond, and I acknowledge that effort.  TY Beebs. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropping you a courtesy note to say that I have unblocked, as emails and posts by Cla68 have assured me that the reason for the block is moot. More on his talk page. Kevin (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a spectacularly bad idea, Kevin, especially since the last communication we saw from Cla68 says he intended to continue to argue that his behavior was acceptable, and take the identity matter he was trying to publicize to highly visible noticeboards. When someone outs another person and they're blocked to stop propagation of those "dox", why in the world would you unblock them on the basis of "they won't say the words, but they're going to keep publicizing the doxes onwiki", especially when you're apparently fully aware that the block was made based on private evidence you don't have access to and can't review? There are valid routes of appeal here that can review the private evidence, and Cla68 was already making use of them. I suggest you reverse your leap-frogging of those processes, since it seems you were mostly flying blind and on instinct rather than making decisions based on any evidence. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with the fluffmeister ... SOP for any unblock is for the editor to acknowledge that their behaviour was incorrect, and confirm that the problem will not recur. When the editor says clearly that their obviously improper behaviour was "correct" and that he'll keep doing it, then the block must remain (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Fluffernutter that this was an incredibly bad call given the user pretty much stated they will persist in their avenue of approach to the issue that got them blocked in the first place.  Snowolf How can I help? 17:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Where has Cla68 said that "he'll keep doing it"? If he does, I'll re-block him myself, and I was one of the most vocal supporters of him being unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's something that has just been brought to my attention: . Those who protest that this was just an innocent misunderstanding might see it in a different light now. I also think Kevin made an extraordinarily basd call in unilateraly unblocking when this should have been handled by BASC, an entitiy the community has specifcally to deal with cases like this. In fact, those users who decided to act as proxies or advocates for Cla undoubtedly made the situation much more complicated and messy than it needed to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That certainly does shed a new light on this incident - I'm getting the impression that this affair is the result of an ongoing feud. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons does not have an equivalent to WP:OUTING. The closest it comes is Commons:Blocking policy. Given the date of the block, it is likely that this is in relation to the unfortunate open discussion of User:Beta M on Commons, which still does not have a policy like WP:CHILDPROTECT. You should check with Rissavia and/or Cla68 before jumping to conclusions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Either that, or this which was also around the same time (note especially point 3 of the unblock, and Volunteer Marek's comment half way down the discussion). Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cla's last edits there before being blocked were....wait for it....suppressed for some reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One other thing; I note that Kevin is an active Wikipediocracy member, participating in the thread discussing Cla68's block. (Cla68 is a moderator of Wikipediocracy.) I'm not at all sure that I'm comfortable with the idea of Wikipediocracy members unblocking each other, particularly given the role that Wikipediocracy has played in causing this incident in the first place. At the very least it looks questionable; there's an arguable conflict of interest. Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * *blink* Um, seriously? Kevin ... did you check your ethics at the front door this morning?  Remember, it doesn't take actual conflict of interest, merely the appearance of potential conflict of interest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I came across the whole incident as Cla68's talk page is on my watchlist. Pretty sure I have never had a conversation with him, either here, there or anywhere else. I am in infrequent user at Wikipediocracy, as often at odds with the views there as I am in agreeance. I'm quite comfortable with my ethics, thanks. Kevin (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, at least COI would have been a useful explanation as to why you unblocked, considering the evidence.  I'm sure the guys from Enron felt their ethics were right up to par too ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How does COI explain why I unblocked? I do not have any conflict. I have precisely nothing to gain there or here from any of this. Even the appearance of a potential conflict is a reach. Kevin (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Woah, there. "Commons does not have an equivalent to WP:OUTING." How the hell did that get past the introduction of Single Unified Login? That has got to be fixed pronto, or "anyone can edit" is toast.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons is broken. I thought everyone knew that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commons doesn't have a lot of things. Morals, a proper child protection policy, or any method of removing abusive administrators. Such things are well known. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and we all know Beeb's feelings about Commons...or was that Meta? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The more I learn about this the more it really, really stinks. Have a look at this paying attention to section E.2 in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Something else to mull over, from Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV:


 * In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names might be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to disclose the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. After being advised that his statement was being perceived as threatening and that several editors were seriously concerned about it, Cla68 arguably did not act to withdraw or clarify his comment as quickly as the circumstances called for. However, a short time later he explained that his statement was intended only as speculation concerning the possibility that the editors might be publicly identified by others, and that he did not mean to suggest that he would do this himself. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully.
 * Passed 8 to 0 at 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

The external website was the now-defunct Wikipedia Review, the unlamented predecessor to Wikipediocracy. The issue was clearly serious enough for the Arbcom to unanimously note it as a finding of fact, and to unanimously pass a remedy admonishing Cla68 and the other parties and instructing them to avoid "Any form of harassing or threatening comments, on the one hand, and unsupported allegations of harassment, on the other". Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is someone feeding you two information or is one of you feeding the other information? The above appears to be more than simple coincidence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've certainly not communicated with Beeb about Cla68, so there's no "feeding the other information", quite obviously. I had actually started writing that up well before Beeb, hence the edit conflict. Actually, there's an interesting question I wouldn't mind having answered. If Cla68 was subject to a indefinite remedy in 2008 to avoid "Any form of harassing or threatening comments", is that remedy still in force and what are the consequences of not complying with it? Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is starting to look like some sort of crusade. Such things tend not to end well. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . My edit summary was a joke. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people need to back away from this really quickly. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear the comment in the link above was from a few weeks ago, but it does attest to the general battleground mentality Prioryman has towards WO. I mean, I don't mind it, but you know, it's there.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, could you please link to or show me the checklists, guidelines, best practices, and/or instructions that you referenced or followed when responding to the alleged outing on Ms Gardner's talk page? Also, who notified you of the link on her talkpage?  Furthermore, who emailed you the link to the Commons information you posted above?  Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, was it Russavia who emailed you to notify you of the post on Ms Gardner's talk page and sent you the links to that Commons stuff you posted above? Yes or no? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This matter came up the same way most oversight issues come up: a user contacted an oversighter (in this case, me) to ask us to look at a current situation. I passed the request on to the rest of the oversight team, since I couldn't attend to it. As far as who submitted the original request to me, the identities of people who make oversight requests, like the identities of all people who contact OTRS in general, are confidential. That means we don't discuss them with people who don't have community approval to view confidential data. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably Beeblebrox can answer the part of the question regarding who is giving him information about Cla68.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First off Cla, I'm pretty sure you are supposed to read me my rights before the interrogation begins.


 * Now then, of course Fulffernutter is quite right about the confidentiality of OTRS requests, in fact I wouldn't have even mentioned that she was the one who brought it over to the list for discussion. Speaking of the list, it is used by those of us who are vetted as having adequate knowledge of privacy-related policies on wikipedia and sufficient judgement to react appropriately to situations involving said issues. There was quite a bit of input on that list regarding this block, and I cannot recall a single oversighter who commented expressing anythign but complete support for both my and someguy's actions.


 * I don't know why you are asking to be directed to the policy you violated, but here it is again: WP:OUTING. That about sums it up, we don't do anything that even attempts to reveal the real identities of users who have not made those identiities known on Wikipedia, regardless of whether they have done so elsewhere, and we block people who violate that policy if there is reason to believe they were aware of it and it was not just an innocent mistake., which is clearly the case here and was alos part of the discussion on the mailing list.


 * I have received numerous emails over the last few days regarding this from a variety of people. I think it is safe to presume that they emailed me because that was how they wanted to communicate. I'd be happy to discuss that further with ArbCom, should they be interested, but not with an angry mob looking for blood, which is what seems to be developing here. You want your pound of flesh, bring it on. We can go straight to ArbCom right now if that's what you want, in fact it has occured to me to toss this to them anyway,   but don't ask me to abuse the trust of those who have contacted me by email because they did not want to be subjected to all this.  It really doesn't matter anyway as the emails only came after the block and so obviously did not influence my decision to go ahead and block, but I do have to say when you put it all together it more than verifies my original unblock description, that this was malicious, deliberate outing from a user who did know better. I'm pretty sure that was what those users wanted me to understand since I said I was willing to consider the possibility that cluelessness was the reason for your repeated outings. Obviously I no longer consider that a possibility. None of them suggested that I "do something" to you or anything if that makes you feel any better, they just wanted to be sure I was aware of all this background and now that I am it really paints a picture of a deliberate campaign to out someone and damage them in real life.


 * Now, I am not interested in hosting another long dabate about this, I have repeatedly explained very specifically what justified this block. If you wish to contest the oversighting of those edits, as them needing to be oversighted was a large part of the reason for the block, you may contact WP:AUSC. Literally nobody else is in the business of officially reviewing suppression actions. If you don't wish to contest the suppression of the edits then you are essentially conceding that the block was valid as that is exactly how we deal with violations of the outing policy. So, you need to decide which one of those positions is your position and either take it up with AUSC or admit you violated the policy and move on. I hope you are aware that you need to be very careful how you proceed here, I wouldn't count on Kevin being able to shield you if you do something that stupid again. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction
Re this comment, Kevin isn't a moderator AFAIK; you may be thinking of Cla68, who is. Kevin has however been a participant in the thread discussing Cla68's block. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Deja vu
This whole mess seems oddly familiar. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynast 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw this and it is already closed, but in the future if you have questions about suppression actions you might want to try asking the oversight team first as your query could easily have been answered by any one of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals
Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the committee. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to report this IP address(190.157.222.66) for doing nothing except massive vandalism
I'd like to report this IP address(190.157.222.66), but I am not quite sure how to proceed, or even whether there's even any point in doing so. As his/her contributions show here, all he/she has done in 4 months is take a large chunk out of one article (Essenes) back in December, which somebody had to fix manually, and then yesterday he/she replaced an entire article (on the 3 secrets of Fatima) with a single link (actually possibly a mildly interesting one for those who are interested in that sort of thing, as I mildly am, so I'm being rather ungrateful in reporting him/her :) but that's beside the point). The article got restored by a bot. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally is there any reason why the Bot leaves behind a facility to report false positives, but, at least as far as I can see, none to confirm that the positive was correct and to proceed against the vandal? And is this something which should be changed? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to waste your time unnecessarily with this stuff, so if you feel that's what I'm doing, please gently let me know. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well first off, don't worry about bothering me, asking a more experienced user for help is always a good idea when wading into a new area. As you can see, I have added a sidebar to this section with lots of helpful links for pages dealing with vandalism and how to handle it.


 * Now, to the matter at hand. This IP has made four edits, and you are correct in your assessment that they are all vandalism. However, the first edit was several months ago, and the three recent ones were all in a short period of time, basically one "act" of vandalism that has now been reverted. They have only been warned once and have not edited since, so for the moment a block is probably not needed. It is often a good idea to add the talk pages of vandal accounts or IPs to your watchlist so that if they get any further warnings you can see them and assess whether it is time to report them.


 * Speaking of reports, usually the fastest way to get a response to reports of active vandals is to use the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard, it is almost always being actively monitored. Dealing with vandalism can also be made easier if you use WP:TWINKLE, a semi automated tool that helps with reverting, warning, and reporting vandals as well as lots of other stuff. You can turn it on by going to the "gadgets" tab in your preferences.


 * And, as far as the bot if you do not report a false positive it is assumed that the bot did its job properly. ClueBot is a very well constructed anti-vandal bot and does not make a lot of mistakes, its presence over the last few years has really helped reduce the length of time that the more obvious types of vandalism remain on pages, it usually removes it within a few seconds. Hope this helps, feel free to let me know if you have any further questions about this or anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very informative reply. Maybe it might save Admins like you a certain amount of time and effort if the Bot were amended to leave a link in its edit description, linking to something very similar to much of what you've said here. But as you're an Admin and thus presumably know better than me whether such a change would be worth the effort, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that's something worth pursuing or not. Thanks again. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion
A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic IPs
Would you mind looking at the recent edit history here. IPs, possibly socks with previous experience of Wikipedia are doing tandem edits. The addition they want is trivial, so I don't suppose it matters. But I don't see how content editors can do anything in situations like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In a situation like this I think your best bet is to open a new section on the talk page, which has basically never been used. Try and establish a consensus on what the inclusion criteria are and try to find a source for the new entry. I would also back off on the accusations of socking. Wikipedia has been around for twelve years now, there are many IP users who are more familiar with our policies than in the past and there is nothing inherintly wrong with being an IP who understands WP policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Acroma Magic and RBI'ed
I don't understand the technical part of this. Don't we have still have to go through SPI for suspected socks? Short of obvious duck behavior, there is no way to know if an editor is AM or not. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There isn't really a technical aspect to it, it is more of an attitude of not making a big deal and just shutting down the socks without fanfare. If you are not sure an SPI is still the right way to go. Hopefully there will be no further socks and we won't need to worry about it. By the way, I don't know that I ever mentioned that I love your username, being a long-time Zappa fan myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ron Duncan
I would like to recreate the article. Can you please userfy it for me. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Duncan&action=history

CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Article is now at User:CrazyAces489/Ron Duncan. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Amina Inloes

 * Hi Beeblebrox thanks for the article, making/fixing in accordance to the rules.Justice007 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Erp. Looking at the thread at AN that may not be exaclty what I did, but at least I finally did a history merge after three and a half years as an admin... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's talk page access
Your curt dismissal of valid concerns brought by other editors, in the way you did at RPP, was a poor performance in my opinion. Some of us have been round and round with this user, and if you would look a little deeper, you would see that there were very good reasons for revoking his talk page access. I don't know why we always bend over backwards to accommodate bad behavior while leaving the project at risk of continued disruption. - MrX 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll look a little deeper....Let's see... looks like his last edit was a fairly polite response to my notification of the formal ban five days ago and nothing since. And of course, what you actually asked for was indefinite full protection, not revocation of talk page access, so there's that. As i said at RFPP, I am not one who is afraid to revoke TP access if there is even a hint of a current problem from a banned user, that simply is not the case here. So, there you go. There is no need for protection or reblocking right now, but an admin with a reputation for being tough on banned users is watching and will take appropriate action if there should be a problem in the future. Now please just let it go unless and until there is a real problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further clarification. Consider it dropped. - MrX 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'm sorry for the Canvassing and i will try not to do it again and thank you for the WP:NPOV tag on the article. Best Regards,  Mrwikidor  ←track  17:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Mrwikidor's editing patterns indicate a consistent level of similar kinds of disruptive behavior across multiple articles concerning Islamism in South Asia. I have posted on Mrwikidor's talk page with some hints and guidelines on how to proceed with editing on wikipedia. However, may I suggest that a more experienced editor such as yourself provide him with better guidance and monitoring concerning this matter?Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Neitmi !vote AN
Question - was your !vote on the last section in the WP:AN discussion on Neitmi sanctions an "Oppose" to both an interaction ban and civility parole, or just civility parole? I'm trying to close as accurately as possible.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was opposition to the civility parole. I support any of thew other proposed sanctions, but not that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

edit warring
I would like to understand exactly how I should proceed with this. I have already filed at DRN. I feel I have done my due diligence with respect to discussion on the talk page. I don't know how much you've looked at the history of this page, but the previous edit warring in October was incredibly long and drawn out. I do not think that I'm unjustified in trying to get other eyes on it.

w/r/t perms, I probably should have stated that i asked solely to address some content issues at contract research organization. If I (or someone else) could address those there wouldnt be any further need for me to have them, though that's hardly different from the current state of things i suppose.

I'm interested in trying to improve my editing and behavior, so suggestions are appreciated, whether on my talk page or via email. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Filing at DRN is a good step, as is participating in talk page discussion as you have been. The problem is, those are things you should do instead of edit warring, not in addition to it. Treat WP:BRD as if it were policy and you should be fine. If you can refrain from edit warring for a while I am sure you would be granted the reviewer right, but as it is the reviewing admins job at WP:PERM to check your contributions and what I found was edit warring behavior as recent as a few hours ago it simply would not be appropriate to grant it right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Incidentally, I have had a request at editor review up for some time. Months, actually, without any input. Just sayin, if you have some time I would very much appreciate the input. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  04:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, editor review used to be a lot more active, it has been backlogged for a long time. I'm about done for the day but I'll see if I can't find some time to have a look at that soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Need a neutral opinion...

 * Please tell me if I got it wrong here, thanks. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't exactly know about the specific disputed facts but at this point we're at the "R" in WP:BRD. So discussion would be the next step if they revert your revert. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you may want to read the edit summary he provided when he removed that whole sourced section, which IMO is nothing short of improper verification of the sourced content as I've warned him on his talk page. For now, I'm just keeping my head low just in case the boomerang flies back at me. -- Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we go~! Alrighty, I'm at 1RR now (per WP:BRD) so someone else has to talk some sense into him if we want to keep things running smoothly here on WP. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My permissions request
Beeblebrox, thanks for denying my request. (Bet you don't here that often.) I'm not being sarcastic. I was completely mistaken as to the nature of the permission. Thanks again. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font:1.25em,Geneva; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af; font-color:teal">TheOneSean &#124; Talk to me 17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct, don't hear that very often. Although someone once thanked me for firing them from their job. I noticed before he did that working all night and not sleeping enough was driving him toward sleep deprivation psychosis. Anyway, you're welcome and keep the good work at AFC! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank You :)
Good day to you !!! Thanks for enabling RB permissions on my account,I promise to do my best with this tool. Cheers :)  MediaJet     talk   21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the info that will help ppogress my contributions, they are exactly what ive been looking for. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Zap this?
As an oversighter, do you think should be removed from public view? Moriori (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have revdeleted it. Please, in the future, do not make such requests on-wiki as it kind of defeats he purpose to post pointers to such edits. Please use the procedures outlined at WP:RFO next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice accepted with thanks. Moriori (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)