User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 34

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nonsense"
I put that in quotations because it just appears that way due to them not understanding the English language, but this user keeps editing their talk page (after being blocked by another admin) with what appears to be just a bunch of nonsense. Might need to have their talk page privileges revoked. Regards. :) - Amaury (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin got there already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Was just coming to post that, haha! - Amaury (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-blocking request
Hello, I'm SD0001. Due to various issues, it is necessary for me leave Wikipedia. I find it very difficult to keep away from Wikipedia and this can adversely affect my personal interests. It is therefore requested that you hardblock my account for a period of  one year . I meet all your self-blocking requirements and agree to all the terms and conditions listed therin. In particular, I hope that you will abide by your last point there. If you find me using a sock or editing via an IP, then block that too. If you agree to this request, which I hope you will, I would be highly grateful. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If possible, it is also requested that you fully protect my user page (to prevent myself from editing it any more!). I think it is allowed for retired users. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You do appear to meet my criteria. Before doing this I like to ask the user to take 24 hours to carefully consider if they really want/need to do this, and to inform them of the wikibreak enforcer which accomplishes essentially the same thing without adding anything to your block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I confirm that I want to be blocked for two years. Also full-protect my user page. I hope you will leave a block summary like "per user request" or "self-requested block" or something similar. Would like to ask one thing though: since you're not a CheckUser, how will come to know if I use a sock account or IP for editing? Regards, SD0001 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if I was a checkuser, I doubt it would be considered appropriate to check if someone was evading a block they requested themselves. There isn't actually any policy here, those are just my personal terms. If that's ok with you I'll go ahead and block you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please block me for 2 years without any more discussion. This is final. SD0001 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
I see you grant Rollback, any chance I can have it, thanks. --Mark Winterbottom (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As this was your second edit and you have a total of four, I believe I can speak for Beeblebrox and say not a chance. Try again when you have roughly 400-500 undeleted edits. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked you, I asked the administrator, get back in your cage and keep your mouth closed. --Mark Winterbottom (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, disregard me. I'm just trying to spare Beeblebrox's time. We generally don't give user rights until you've proven yourself capable of editing properly with an established track record. Also, please redact the personal attack in your comment. Finally, perhaps you should slow your rollback and admin ambitions down until you have more than 11 edits, of which eight are in the user and user talk namespaces. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "We" don't give user rights? "You" are not an admin or have you forgotten, I am asking Beeblebrox. He will decide whether his time needs to be spared or not, so this time, please (kindly) remove yourself from this conversation and go hunting for vandalism, there's a good chap.
 * Grossly unqualified + incredibly rude = I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Beeblebrox, how's it going mate? So, I am civil now as you can see, so, what you say? Rollback? Mark Winterbottom (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No. End of discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

YGM
... on the way. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Two questions
Beeblebrox, I recently considered the idea of a self-block in protest of a proposed ban on another user. I read your bullets in "Conditions" and I had a question about bullet #3, "The block term should be for a significant period of time, not just a day or two." My consideration, then, was how the ANI would turn out. As it happened, I did not need to take that sort of stand, but had I, I wasn't willing to go for a six-month block on myself to protest a gang-up on another editor (I'd look for another form of protest, instead). But if an incremental 72-hour block were imposed on that editor I would have requested a self-block on myself, in sympathy. Does your bullet #3 exclude that sort of protest block for that duration?

Second, in a discussion above, you point to a script known as the "WikiBreak Enforcer". Would you consider adding this information to your general guideline page on this issue, kindly? Thanks,   &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On your first point, no I would not block someone at their request for any length of time if it was intended as a protest action. That's not a judgement on whatever situation you are referring to, that's just not the point of why I (very rarely) accept reqests to be blocked. On the other hand you have a point that mentioning the wikibreak enforcer in my conditions would be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail
 Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * H, got your mail, and I'm always willing to discuss any serious proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thorn-Stingley House
Speaking of the recent slew of NRHP-related permastubs, this one was created not too long ago and is marked with an Image requested tag on its talk page, if you're in a position to rectify that. I don't specifically recall this place, but Google Maps gives me the impression that it anchors a city park. If that's the case, mention of that is missing from the article, too. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've actually known about it for a while, but I wasn't aware it had an article now. I've never taken a picture because it's just somebody's house and there's always cars parked out front, kid's toys, etc. It's not in any park that I am aware of, although it is near a nature trail. I'll keep an eye on it. The funny thing to me is that there are more known and notable old buildings in Homer, like the Salty Dawg or the Bunnell Street Art Center, that for whatever reason aren't NRHP sites. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A user making disruptive edits with socks.
70.26.220.3 and 70.26.220.190 made repeated disruptive edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_26&diff=655915529&oldid=655915175, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_26&diff=next&oldid=655915832 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_26&diff=next&oldid=655917014 in The Amazing Race 26. He also engaged in similar behaviour in The Amazing Race 25: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_25&diff=655915976&oldid=655873985 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_25&diff=next&oldid=655917109. They are extremely likely to be socks because they are both new, made very little edits and made the exact same edit. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure why you chose to bring this to me specifically but I would note the following:
 * It does not look as though anyone has tried actually engaging with this person about their edits, explaining why you believe they were wrong and trying to have an actual conversation is always better than just reverting and reporting to an admin befor the other user has been given the chance to explain their position.
 * Using multiple IPs is not necessarily socking, the user may not even be aware they are doing it. If they are using a mobile device it is likely they have a different IP every time they edit. This is not indicative of any ill intent.
 * Both of the those issues would seem to indicate a failure to assume good faith on your part. These edits don't look malicious, I'm not even sure I would call them "disruptive".
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:8semka/sandbox
Hi,

About your decline on the speedy deletion of User talk:8semka/sandbox, I want to point out that this is not a draft of an article. It is a fake version of America's Next Top Model. This is typical of people using Wikipedia for online versions of popular realioty TV shows. This version purports to be cycle 9, and is taking place now with a premier that took place on March 6, 2015. In reality, America's Next Top Model (cycle 9) was from way back in 2007 and does not have this cast of models. America's Next Top Model (cycle 21) is the last aired cycle, and cycle 22 has yet to air. Please reconsider as this is obviously fake. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have known better as I have deleted lots of these type of pages in the past. I hadn't seen one in a long while andI guess I failed to consider that it was a fake, I'll zap it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reconsidering. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of User:20creator15/sandbox
When first created, the sandbox contained a copyright violation which I discussed with the editor. I had tagged the sandbox as G12 at the time. Please see this version of it. The editor subsequently blanked the page. There's no prohibition on him recreating the page, but I feel it is appropriate to delete it under WP:G7, as the author, who is the only contributor to the page (other than me tagging it, and Xeno moving it on a rename) has blanked the page. I grant that G7 seems to disallow userspace pages under this criterion, but in this case I am trying to eliminate a copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, that wasn't really clear in the nom, deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Beeblebrox for granting my request. Pledge do go by all the rules. Regards.--Rberchie (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been here for almost ten years
And never seen quite that. I guess it's why I usually avoid the drama boards. Thanks again for jumping on it. I'll go out on a limb and predict talk page privileges will need to be revoked at some point today. BusterD (talk)
 * Too late. Best. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, if someone starts talking about demands and yelling in all caps it's a pretty sure sign that they are the problem and not the other way around. Hopefully he will calm down and can return when the block is over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why we pay you the big bucks... BusterD (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, you're the Palmolive of admins, cutting through dirt and grease in no time at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are apparently blockhappy, could fire one up in this direction per this harassment and this personal attack? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And since you're so quick to yank talk page privileges, could you deal with Al Qaeda Jr. over here? BusterD (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Both ✅. And on that note I'm outta here for the day. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Querying an old block
You had blocked an editor in December 2013, and you had logged this entry here, after the update from 20 January 2015, the entry can be read from here. However, I have doubts whether the block was made under an arbitration enforcement or it was just a normal block.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume you are not rying to call me a liar even though it sure sounds like it. I guess I have questions of my own in that case:
 * What are these doubts of yours based on?
 * Are you aware that there does not have to be a formal discussion at WP:AE for an uninvolved admin to issue an Arbitration enforcement block?
 * Have you noted that the user was previously blocked as an arbitration enforcement action for edit warring in this same area?
 * Is there some reason this even matters since that user has not edited in about 16 months?
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just moved a few latest entries from older logs today, because they had to be logged at 2015. I just saw this one entry and recalled this block, it didn't really included any link to ARE whether in blocking template or blocking summary, it looked like a normal block. But since you have said that it was an ARE block, case is solved.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that comments like that are not appropriate for someone with your level of permissions on the site! I realize it means less than nothing coming from an IP but it gives a lot of credence to the arguments that admins get away with conduct that would cause others to be punished! You clearly have history with these other editors and it may be hard to be unbiased. If that is the case it may be best to let someone else deal with the problem entirely. Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment is so full of false assumptions I don't know which one to begin with. I think we can all see the emerging consensus that this is in fact a pretty lame thing to be making a big deal over. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will have consensus that you were right in your actions but the pattern I am seeing is your childish and unnecessarily provocative comments and I wonder if you weren't an admin if they would be tolerated. My guess is not for long. As you are no doubt aware there are a growing number of people who are concered with the conduct of admins on this site and their exclusion from policy. Myself included and you are giving proof of those concerns in your rude and openly mocking manner. Personally, given what I have seen today and in previous incidents with which you were involved and with your attitude and arrogance I would say your future career on Wiki will eventually have the same fate as Wifione and Dreadstar. But we both know how long that will take as an admin/oversighter who was previously a member of the Arbcom. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I say this let me assure it is not because you are an IP, it is because I think both you and Tutelary are just people who like to stir up shit just for the sake of it: please go away and leave me alone. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC )
 * You've been talking with Reguyla. I've blocked the IP for 12 hours (likely for all the good it will do). Nick (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Since you are sure that it is a block evader, would you be increasing the block length? Don't forget to increase the block length of the main account, or let us just bring it to WP:ANI for violating the standard offer, this was third time.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not increasing the block length on any account. Reguyla has been fucked over by the community and should really have been unblocked a couple of months ago. I'm stepping in to stop this trouble here and doing nothing else to keep a perfectly good content editor off the project. You should be utterly ashamed at your behaviour in all of this, OccultZone. Nick (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have known, but I guess I thought he was actually trying to get unbanned and was holding to his umpteenth promise to stop socking and trolling. Speaking as someone who was on arbcom during the period when the entire committee was subject to extreme harrassment from him I can't say I share your opinion of him. He once was a very productive editor, but he turned from that path and very deliberately became a troll and a long-term abuser. Nevertheless, thanks for stepping in and blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I do have a question. Suppose if one has removed the comments of a editor like Kumioko, is it allowed for anyone to restore them again? I know that restoring content to main article is allowed, but I have never seen that restoring talk page comments is allowed at all.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is a definitive answer for that. Any user is free to remove comments from block/ban evaders, but a lot of pointless edit warring has been spawned by such situations. I certainly don't care if anyone removes his comments but if they are put back I wouldn't bother with it. The less attention he gets the better as causing disruption is and has been his stated goal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much answers everything. Thanks. Striking may be a better idea.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also consider checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kumioko_ban_proposal  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Think this IP is Mark Winterbottom?
tried to get his user page deleted. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is odd, but I don't think it is enough in and of itself to say it's the same person evading a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation?
I would like your professional opinion here. This section has been here for over ten years, but seems like a massive BLP violation totally irrelevant to the article or its talk page. What say you? — Confession0791 talk 23:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I am exactly a "professional" as I haven't made BLP articles a focus, but I would say it is borderline. It is an attemot to disucss an editorial decision. Archiving the page is an option but I doubt anyone would strongly object if you just removed the section. You could also ask at WP:BLPN, which is dedicated noticeboard for discussion of issues just like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. — Confession0791 talk 01:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PERM/RV
Hi, thankyou for commenting on my request in WP:PERM/RV.. I'm happy that you atleast gave me a good reason.. When shall I comeback again? Jut to avoid more, can you point out some of the mistakes I made using the rollback tool, the mistakes I should avoid? Regards -- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   03:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just counsel you to take it slow, and make sure you have a good reason every time you use rollback, and that you explain yourself clearly. Once you've been doing that for amonth or two without trouble I think you could easily qualify for the reviewer tool as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?
Hi. Could you have a look at User:Gabriel Andrijausco/sandbox? It looks suspiciously like the material that used to be housed at User talk:8semka/sandbox, but as I am not an admin, I cannot view it. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was word-for-word. Looks like 8semka was actually the sock and they went back to the other one after the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you looking into this. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistake?
- Looks like you forgot to click disable talk page access. Tiptoety talk 02:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. . Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
I actually have been looking forward to this day for a long time! The autopatrolled right is important to me and I will certainly continue to create good content. Thank you and the very best of regards!
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol
Hello bee,

I observed that you granted autopatrol tool to. I want to let you know that I had just reviewed some of their articles. Although I really don't have much concern about stubs creation but my headache about editors who often create contents like this is that they are often not familiar with basic policies. They tend to create garbage articles after they have the tool. They either create unreferenced or copyvio contents. In Masssly's case, I feel they should allow other editors to patrol their pages for now because am not really convince that they are familiar with basic policies, particularly the WP:CV considering the fact that Yakubu Ayana, a page they created was recently deleted by per G12 as Unambiguous copyright infringement of this website. Another one, Habib Iddrisu was also recently deleted by as Unambiguous copyright infringement of this website. I really don't think its a good idea to grant them the tool for now but if you feel they should have it, I have no choice than to agree with you. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Masssly was the subject of a copyright investigation, now archived at Contributor copyright investigations/Masssly. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like all the stuff in the investigation may have been recently deleted, but was actually created a year ago. Not surprising as copyright investigations tend to be understaffed. Nevertheless, I'll take another look. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something, I'm not seeing any actual copyvios created in the first four months of this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You never missed anything bee. Its just that you are unlikely to see anything in the last few months because all the articles created by this user in the last few months are stubs and there are nothing much in the stubs they created ( one or two sentences articles). Personally I really don't feel that contents like this are enough to grant this tool but I had even seen an admin who recently granted the tool (in violation of WP:AUTOPAT ) to a user who only created disambiguation pages. Nevertheless, we may need to keep our eyes open. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Court judges
Hi bee

I can't find the WP:NG for judges, I mean court judges either judges at the supreme or high court. Do you think that judges of high court or its equivalents are notable? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, WP:N is the standard. That being said, if we're talking about a high or supreme court for an entire sovereign nation I would imagine all the judges would be considered notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed on personal attack
Could you advise how to avoid this kind of edit in the future? Cheers. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

To be fair " as a neutral " the initial comment by jeppesvinet to him could have been considered inappropriate. Starting it with "Laugh" is neither productive or respectful and is better suited to a chat room than a wiki discussion. I would suggest they both need to take a step back and let others continue the article discussion Drjamesphillips (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. If this was the only instance since being warned yesterday I might have gone with a "final warning" but even a quick glance shows other unaccaptable comments, taunting, and battleground behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And, as if that weren't enough, it turns out that both Scaravich and this Drjamesphillips account who commented here are socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I considered posting a reply here and pointing out that the claims by Drjamesphillips were untrue. But with the block I figured no need. Anyway, it is all taken care of I see. Thanks. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom Baker
Hi, thanks for semi protecting Tom Baker, but I'm wondering if it should actually be full-protected? The semi will stop the edit warring, for sure, but technically has breached 3RR, and the article isn't on my preferred version, as I said on talk. From my experience with the Best known for IP, he will jump on anything that appears to favour registered editors, and in this instance I think it's best for everybody to calm down and sort out the dispute on talk. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I support Ritchie333's call for a full block, as to be honest, as the talk page shows, the Best-known for IP will be back, and will start this again. I will take complete responsibility for breaching 3RR, my only explanation being that the only time I have done so was against the Best-known for IP's editing at Tom Baker, and that I did attempt to have a conversation with the IP both times this issue has come up. But I did break 3RR, and will accept without fight any punitive action you deem appropriate. Even against the IP editor, I will be more careful in the future not break 3RR. My apologies. Vyselink (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't do punitive stuff round here, I'm afraid. My aim isn't to get anyone's wrist slapped for violating 3RR, but rather, the lead of that article is still in flux, and I'd rather get a proper consensus on it with more views without anyone being tempted to change the wrong version. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did consider full protection as it is an edit war which by definition must Involve at least two users, but it looked like the IP was evading a block to edit war. Perhaps I should have looked a little deeper as I did not realize this was an LTA case. Although edit warring certainly occured I think we can let it pass given that the IP is apparently a notorious troll. Of course you are correct that in a situation like this the best thing is always WP:BRD. I don't think we should be worried about the IPs reaction in this case as it doesn't matter, someone like that will freak out no matter what we do and I wouldn't to put an article under full protection just to assuage the concerns  of a troll. Let's let it be for the moment, if disruption starts back up other action may be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit I have deliberately copyedited the phrase "best known for" out of BLPs where it makes sense to do so, simply because it prevents so much edit warring and incredibly long talk page threads that go round in circles until everyone's exhausted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Superfeedr
Browsing the new pages I came across this page, which I noticed that you had previously deleted per an AfD. I don't know how to check what the page looked like before it was deleted, so I thought I'd ask you: has much changed since before, or does the article qualify for WP:CSD? Pishcal — ♣ 19:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the deleted version was a two-sentence stub, so it has been significantly expanded. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lippert
The source is a published newspaper, KCNA, Korean Central News Agency. Kim is the member of a political group which demands the end of the war. It should makes sense considering the political statements that he screamed during the assault. White Anunnaki (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe something is getting lost in translation here, but the source's tone, combined with the use of the phrases like "puppet police" and "madcap saber rattling" gives the impression is not a neutral publication that simply reports the facts. In fact, it reads as if the reporter thinks it is perfectly ok to cut an ambassador in the face if you are opposed to war, and that all Koreans feel that way.  Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it now, this is the central news agency for North Korea. In other words, a propaganda tool for the Kim regime that actual North Koreans mostly can't even access. That's not going to be considered a reliable source, not by a long shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found another source that confirms it so the information was reliable. White Anunnaki (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest you use that source and just forget about eh North Korean one and what it had to say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All newspapers have an opinion; that one has an opinion opposed to yours does not make it less reliable, as it was proven in this case. White Anunnaki (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that most newspapers publish opinions on the opinion pages instead of just mixing them in with the news, complete with over-the-top hyperbole. They may have been right about the man belonging to that group, but overall it was an extremely biased piece of reporting. I don't think you'll have much luck convincing anyone that an official mouthpiece for the North Korean government can be considered a reliable source of factual information. Feel free to take this up at the noticeboard if you don't want to take my word for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

White Anunnaki created an account two days ago but is citing rules like a Wikipedia vet making pro-North Korea edits attacking human rights articles, excessive tagging, citing North Korea propaganda sources etc most of which are being reverted by multiple editors across many articles. -- Green  C  22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I wondered if I wasn't being trolled when I realized the source we were discussing was the official news service of North Korea. However, as I was involved here on an editorial level so I can't get involved on an administrative level. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Hi, Beeblebrox, I noticed you closed the BLPN discussion on this article several months ago. Now, Andy the Grump has blanked the article as a BLP violation. I assume if this was the correct act, it would have come up in your decision so I hope you will review this edit to weigh in on whether the article should be deleted. It has already survived Prods and speedy deletes. Of course, it is also being discussed at AN/I. Liz Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page. This situation seems to be spiraling out of control, with several users acting rather unreasonable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's been a contentious discussion page for a long time but this is a knee jerk reaction, to delete most/all of the article's content and then protect the article to admins-only. It disregards the lengthy discussion that have already occurred on the content of the article. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The current situation is not optimal to be sure. I don't get why those alleging libel are refusing to contact the oversight team about it. That's exactly what we are there for. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most, if any NPOV problems that existed in that article were incredibly subtle. Things like depicting one journalist's or another's analysis of the situation as biased, or bickering about the length of the accused's section in the article in comparison to the accuser's. None of these NPOV disputes really escalated to libelous, in my opinion. I think this was just a way for several users to de facto poke at the few they disagreed with. It really had nothing to do with libel in the first place.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI
Hi Beeblebrox, Just wanted to say thanks for your help with the SPI, I'm not all that familiar with it so perhaps wasn't a good idea to drag them there, That said I guess it's better to be safe than sorry,

Anyway I've apologized to the user & all that so no harm done

Thanks for your help - Much appreicated :)

Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What to do?
What should I do for that user? (willfilm123) Since I just doubt it, should I proceed? or should I wait till I am 100% sure? aGastya   &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 19:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As i was saying at AN, you could try just talking to them about it. Or, if you're really not sure and their editing is otherwise OK you could just ignore it. Most of the time people with seemingly promotional usernames are acting in good faith and simply aren't aware of the WP:ORGNAME policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still should I let the user know, to avoid future problems? aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 22:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFCN
Thanks for the close; to be honest, I had completely forgotten about that, and only "remembered" when it popped up on my watchlist just now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that WP:UAA has been so busy lately that other username-related pages like RFCN and WP:UAA/HP have been getting very little attention. Seems to be the result of some UAA regulars moving on to other things, combined with some overzealous reporting of things that are not blatant violations. Anyhoo, you're welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I now?
Hi, you may remember me from rejecting a request in WP:PERM/RV. You advised me to gain a bit more experience.. I think I'm sufficiently experienced now... Can I go for a request in WP:PERM/RV? Please do enlighten me...! Regards -- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You may file another request there whenever you think you are ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet letter
Is it necessary to leave the scarlet letter on User:Dicklyon, or can my master's user page be restored as a representation of his meager accomplishments now that he is officially retired? 73.222.28.191 (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Word can barely express how little I care one way or another, but I would point out that when he was initially blocked he made a big deal out of saying how much he didn't care and would just take a break, and it turned out he was already operating multiple accounts when he said that, so his word that he really is "retired" is not something I would trust until a lot more time has gone by without further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary
Hello Beeblebrox

Thanks for your attention at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. However your edit summary that " neither of you seem to know what this is " seemed to be amazing an ridiculous to me. I really don't like sounding rude here but this seemed to be painful. How on earth will you imagine that I don't know what WP:AUTOPATROLLED flag is? Although, it is never a tool but a user right or flag. Its a mistake to call it a tool and that should be understandable rather than such a ridiculous edit summary. As at the time user:Utogi applied for the flag, they never stated any reason why they need the flag and that is why I pointed them to that essay. The essay advised that "If you are applying for rights, be sure to show why you think you can improve Wikipedia by having those rights, generally by showing a positive record of actions and attitude. Don't just assert that you'll find the tool useful, give evidence of why you need the tool" the essay also advised that "If you are applying for autopatrol, point to the articles you created" meanwhile the user never pointed to any article they had created. The "Hello everyone" does not make any difference and meaning. Am aware they meant WP:HATSHOP and I never accused the editor of hat collecting either, am only pointing them to the advice above. Having mistakenly called the user right a tool does not warrant such an edit summary. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , whether did know what autopatrolled is or not, you not only mislead the editor by using the wrong terminology and linking to the wrong page, you in no way were aiding the responding admin in making their decision. The PERM noticeboards are not a venue to interrogate or patronize editors (though that may have not been your intent). If you feel you must make comments like this, do so on their talk page, though you should respect the process and allow the admins to handle it. Constructive comments such as "this user recently had an article deleted as copyright violation" are fine, but keep a neutral tone and don't act like you are above them. Meanwhile you have had inadvertantly caused other disruption at PERM . I know you mean well and are trying to help, but perhaps you should leave the requests for permissions to those who can action upon them (and the clerking to the bots). Instead, consider putting your valued editing skills to work elsewhere, where you will have a greater impact on the project than this tiny corner of the admin backlog. Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . I will adhere strictly to your advice. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Answer
In a word... I wanted to include igloo. This program writes: "Warning: rollback rights are required to use igloo. Loading stopped". O.K. ?. I wanted to use permissions, including autopatrolled an rollback. I wanted to participate against vandalism. Don’t be nervous, please. I beg your pardon!. - OTOGI  Messages 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you wanted rollback, perhaps you should have, you know, asked for rollback. The right way to do that would be by posting a request at the apropriate page that explained why you felt you needed it and why you believe you have the required level of experience.
 * But that's not what you did, you filed a request for autopatrolled that just said "hi everyone!" and nothing else. I'm concerned that you apparently don't understand that the way you went about this was wrong in every way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree with you !. It's my fault... :). - OTOGI  Messages 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFP/R
Hello, you recently declined my request for this permission, which I completely respect. You listed my mishap with WilyD as the main reason for this, stating that I did several things wrong which I get. The misunderstanding was based on a believed piece of policy in my head which was that editors do not generally remove CSD tags (especially when they had been tagged by an admin) but clicked on the "contest this speedy deletion" button. Now I admit fully I was wrong, and don't know where I even got the initial conception from. I then added the template to Wily's user page (and as you mentioned I changed the default text). You said that I did not consider the possibility that I was mistaken, when I did (why else would I have asked another experienced editor for advice?) and then promptly realised my mistake and set about fixing the problem. I do believe that this was an isolated incident, based on a single misconception in my mind that led to one or two other non-brilliant outcomes. However, I would ask that you reconsider your decline, especially as I made a good number of reverts over the last day or so, and I believe that I am getting it right a good deal more often than not. I understand if you decline, as it was not an attractive mistake to make, but I do ask that you reconsider, as I believe that it was more or less a one-off with no other related incidents in the near past (that I can see). Cheers, JZCL 19:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said when I declined it, I don't see it as anything but an isolated incident, but it was a serious misunderstanding that happened very recently, and that you, initially handled very badly. If nothing like this happens again I could see a new request being approved in a few weeks or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK I understand. Dammit, if I'd just made that request a few weeks before; that was the worst mistake I'd made in years... Joking asides it's good that you guys pick up on stuff like that which could indeed potentially be libelous. I will indeed re-post in 2 weeks or so. Thanks, JZCL 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey about that RFPERM
I just thought I would clarify about that whole RFPP thing. As you may have noticed, I keep an eye on RFPP and comment from time to time when I feel it necessary. I never actually close, except this time it was just so incredibly obvious there was no chance, I figured I would help out seeing no obvious harm in the action. The issue arose when WV an editor from past disputes magically shows up, having not edited there in months (other than last time an editor he disputes with wanted a permission) and reverts it. Now as I said, I'm not overly bothered, just trying to reduce admin workload when it is something fairly obvious like this. I'll let the regulars come by and confirm, though I feel they will agree., as it wasn't that big of a deal, I was quite confident one of you would come round and reclose the same way. However WV then launched a (in my opinion) unneeded attack basically, "I couldn't care less if you're bothered or not ... You're not an admin, ... you still over-stepped and made an inappropriate move. ... inappropriate and out of line for this page...". Now I'm sorry this bothered me, I had already struckthrough my ND and NAC and was fine to let someone else handle it, but he decided he needed to make it a fight by editing my comment and adding his reply. Is it just me that finds it interesting how he shows up at places I edit? This isn't the first time either... But anyway I just wished to explain my actions, just so you wouldn't think I was jumping out of line or trying to restore my close as WV tried to make it sound. SOrry for any inconvenience, and I guess I won't be helping out with semi-admin task anymore, even though that is one of the main reasons I edit, I don't particularly enjoy adding content... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, your comments were 100% accurate and it was an obvious decline. It was certainly not my intent to make you feel unwelcome, it's just that lately it feels like PERM requests are getting more help from non-admins than is actually needed to manage backlogs, which are usually not a serious issue.


 * In contrast, some of our deletion processes have experienceing some larger backlogs, and there are things that can be done there as well, mostly non-admin closes of obvious "keep" outcomes or declining of flawed speedy deletion nominations or PRODs. Although I do enjoy it sometimes, I was never a serious article writer myself, that's pretty much why I became an admin. Wikipedia needs different kinds of users, article writers to create the content, and... well... I guess pretty much everyone else to maintain it. That would include admins, arbcom, crats, checkusers, and so on, but also folks who do vandal fighting, new page patrol, copyediting, and of course closing of discussions where an administrator is not required (this is why we don't really do NACs at PERM, they aren't normally considered discussions and as such don't really need a close, just a yes or no response. The one big exception is requests for the confirmed permission, where the rules are so narrow and it a permission so few users actually need that almost everyone gets told no).


 * I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I wouldn't want to just chase you off from contributing at PERM, there are many other areas that could benefit more from non-admn, non-content writing users like yourself. And if you do plan to become an admin yourself someday, a diversity of contributions in admin related areas (especially CSD) is a big help at RFA. Hope that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since my name was mentioned here, I feel I have a right to correct some incorrect statements by EoRdE6. I didn't just "magically" appear at Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer.  It's on my watchlist.  Further, it's not the first time I have said/edited anything there for months.  I commented there just a couple of weeks ago.  Again, it's on my watchlist -- I go by there a few times a week.  That's the only reason why I knew EoRdE6 had closed and added the "Not Done' notice.  That's all there is to it.  No hounding or stalking of edits (as is being implied).  And yes, I was curt in my comments.  Why?  Because EoRdE6 has acted in such a reckless manner before, crossing a boundary he shouldn't have -- one example is here, where he not only messed with the interface but also uploaded a screen shot of my contributions to commons and then posted it as an "example" of his work at Village Pump.  He was told at VP in no uncertain terms how out of line he was with what he did and when a few administrators took him to task about uploading my contributions, he got the message -- or so I thought. Today's close by him was just more of the same kind of pushing the envelope.  Hence, the reason for my tone with him at RFPPCR.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to continue this conversation, we both know it will get nowhere but I wish to correct just a few things in your statement. I did not "where he not only messed with the interface", only admins can do that anyway. Interface pages are full protected and I'm sure you know that. After I received a message from you, I immediately tagged the image for speedy deletion, then contacted a commons admin for immediate removal. As I said at the time, it hadn't even occurred to me what page the screenshot was of, it was simply the only one I took before the issue was fixed. I apologised for the issue and thought that was behind us. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "After I received a message from you, I immediately tagged the image for speedy deletion" Completely untrue.  Two different editors and one administrator had to stay on you about doing it.  You hemmed and hawed and kept linking to the screenshot (and was told to stop doing so). It took at least an hour after being told you were out of line for you to do anything about it at all.  Long after I complained about it.  I don't have time to provide diffs to the comments about it at your talk page and mine, but anyone can look at March 31, 2015 at both talk pages to get the whole, correct story.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point...
..with the GlobalRenameRequest facility, administrators might block a user for username while the target's username request is pending. Fortunately, with steward and global renamer coverage, requests to that queue don't linger for long. (Mind, in the case you mentioned, the user accidentally filed the request onwiki while logged out and then fixed it.) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just add something to uw-username asking the user to add a notification or a diff to their talk page if they make a rename request? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It's not unheard of for admins to block for username even when the editor has made an onwiki request. One of my pet peeves :). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

SD0001
Could you also un-protect this editor's user page? I believe that the alternate account that they used should be noted there. BMK (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BMK (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My Topic ban
Hi Beeblebrox. You just imposed a topic ban on me at ANI. There seems to have been some great confusion in the !voting during this ANI. The original proposal was "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI".(my emphasis) May I respectfully suggest that extending this to "all pages related to human biomedicine" is not in line with the way that people were !voting and you may have misunderstood. I did not even defend myself against such a broad topic ban because I did not think I had to. I can't remember the last time I edited a conventional human biomedicine article and in alt.med, other than acupuncture, in the last month only 2 edits on reflexology, 10 edits on acupressure and 1 on Reiki. May I please ask you to reconsider the scope of this topic ban. DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the discussion, and I do not believe I worded the tban notice correctly. I don't think you're going to like what I changed it to very much but I believe this is in fact what the majority of supporters were in favor of. It has been noted that when you avoid these topics you seem to get along much better. I would advise you to simply stay away from anything that could possibly be construed as being anywhere near the scope of this ban, I think you will find that editing will be a more enjoyable experience for you if you do. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing
.Beeblebrox, thanks for closing this ANI thread. Just a detail, though… while nobody who's been following the discussion could possibly misunderstand the close, still, uh, if somebody just catches sight of the thread, or clicks on the TOC to look, it'll kind of look like it's JzG who's been topic banned. See what I mean? But I don't suppose that's a big deal, it might even amuse him. (Get a screenshot, Guy!) Thanks for taking on this sad mess, Beeb, good job, and I'm glad it's over. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).
 * I think that is an extremely important point - the uncivility of JzG toward me has not yet been dealt with. DrChrissy (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You think what is an extremely important point?? Please quote where I make the important point. Sorry, Beeb, I'm done on your page for now. I shouldn't be responding to DrC here, I was just so surprised. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Also, there was some discussion on ANI about the topic: "alt med", "biomedicine", "human biomedicine", "alt med and biomedicine", etc. DrCrissy has been editing Veterinary acupuncture since you closed the discussion. Could you possibly clarify whether your decision of "biomedicine" would include such topics? Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I have been editing Veterinary acupuncture. The sanctions do not extend into the veterinary area, only the human area. DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Biomedical is not strictly limited to human medicine. Regardless though, the topic ban discussion was primarily focused on issues dealing with alt-med (e.g., acupuncture), so there technically can be cross-over between veterinary and alt-med if the focus of the biomed ban is because of alt-med problems. Beeblebrox, it could be worthwhile to clarify just what the topic ban scope is (and that's it's for DrChrissy) to help with potential ambiguity issues in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have modified both the wording of my close and the tban notice on DrChrissy's talk page to address these concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Beeblebrox, I'd be concerned about this being extended to animals. DrChrissy says she is, as I recall, an animal behaviorist or specialist in veterinary medicine. Acupuncture is used by vets, and that's something she might want to write about (and not only that). The comments that I saw on AN/I didn't mention extending this to animals. In fact, most weren't clear about the scope of the ban. A brief scan (can't promise I have everyone):


 * Support topic ban from altmed (3): Kww, Bishonen (?), Andrew Lenahan (supports broader sanctions too)


 * Support topic ban from all biomedical content (9): Dbrodbeck, Alexbrn, QuackGuru ("all controversial medical topics"), TenOfAllTrades, Jess, Zad68, Kingofaces43, BullRangifer, Jytdog


 * Support topic ban, unspecified (14): Opabinia regalis, Doc James, Parabolist, TheGracefulSlick, Johnuniq, Serialjoepsycho, BMK, Cullen, Formerly 98, Ncmvocalist, MastCell, SandyGeorgia, Viewmont Viking, Guy


 * Oppose topic ban (12): petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, Montanabw, Littleolive oil (support 1RR/2cmt), I am One of Many, Aspro, BoboMeowCat, Atsme, LesVegas, A1candidate, Gandydancer, Minor4th


 * Other (2): Short Brigade Harvester Boris (take it to AE), Robert McClenon (ditto)


 * Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do not see a consensus to extend this sanction to animal articles as I have just mentioned on Cr Chrissy's talk page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC))


 * There are 3 mentions of his edits to animals in the thread. The first notes that Crissy contributes to articles on animal behavior, but is problematic when turning to medicine, the second supports his continued contributions to animals in general (like rabbit) by avoiding an outright community ban, and so suggests a tban on biomed "widely construed". The last is by Jytdog, who is the only one I can see to propose the tban exclude articles on animals. IMO, it's hard to imagine there was consensus for the tban to exclude animal articles when only one editor indicated it should. Given that the problems began on Acupuncture, moving immediately over to Veterinary acupuncture seems risky, at best.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look again at the original posting for the secondary thread "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI"....That is what people were !voting on. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Crissy Correct, the original proposal was "alt med", not "alt med excluding animals", and many editors indicated that topic should be extended to also include biomedicine as well. Discussions sometimes change as they progress, as happened here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That really sums up my thoughts on the matter too. Alt-med regardless of species seems to be well within the scope people were discussing, so I don't really see something like veterinary acupuncture falling outside the scope. Someone could pull a broad biomedical ban from the ANI looking at those who suggested it, so I don't think Beeblebrox is blatantly out of line with that call (some suggested it as a wider ban than just acupuncture/alt-med, a few thought it was too much, so it's really Beeblebrox's call). Either way, I prefer to end ANI conversations once they are closed, so I've said my two cents here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jess, there was no mention of animals in the proposal. The proposal was extended midway from altmed to all med, then several editors said they supported without saying what. That made it a difficult discussion to close. It's not clear that all the unspecifieds supported a biomedical ban, and there was no suggestion that they'd extend it to animals. We have precious few experts in that area. It doesn't make sense to topic ban one of them when they haven't caused a problem on those articles. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus that specifically extends this sanction to animal articles. Further, that a vote does not mention animals or that it specifically excludes animal articles implies a support vote for an extension of the sanction is not reasonable. logical, or I'd add fair. I, for example, did not even consider that this AN/I case related to animal articles and I know DR Chrissy edits on those articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC))


 * @Sarah Correct, and since it wasn't mentioned, I think it's safe to assume it isn't an exception people had in mind when !voting. In my case, when I said "biomed", I meant biomed, not "biomed excluding animals". I'm not sure it's fair to say Crissy hasn't caused problems on Veterinary Acupuncture when the thrust of the problems were on its parent article. A topic ban includes articles the editor hasn't yet contributed to - hence "topic". @Olive biomedicine includes animals, it's not an "extension", and the same goes for alt med. What we're discussing here is an "exception", and no exception was substantively discussed. Anyway, I agree with Kingofaces, it's probably not worth rehashing the whole discussion all over again here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No Jess, you are very wrong there - some in support of sanctions were saying that I did not understand WP:MEDRS. I actually do understand it, very well, but I do not agree with all of it so I question it...simple democracy and freedom of speech. Apparently though, such questioning is a henious crime.  However, MEDRS doe not apply to animal articles, so, I should be free to edit animal-related articles.  Your edit summary indicated some frustration at this discussion continuing...why are you in such a hurry? DrChrissy (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sarah and Littleolive oil. The closure was way too hasty and did not take into account those separate issues raised by many editors opposing the topic ban. I certainly did not feel that my statement was taken into consideration either. As User:EdJohnston suggested earlier: "I'd suggest letting this run at ANI for another couple of days." . Beeblebrox, I request that you allow some time to pass and wait for more comments before hatting an entire discussion like you did over here. It's okay to disagree with a group of editors, but it's not okay to close the entire discussion before a coherent consensus can be discerned. - A1candidate  21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I need every person who already disagreed with the tban to come over here and tell me they don't like the close. Except in the rare case of total unanimity it can be assumed that persons who opposed a porposal are not going to be happy that consensus favored it.


 * I also don't see any benefit in re-opening it to let the vitriol and mitpicking run a few more days when the eventual outcome was clear already and the situation was deteriorating. Please bear in mind that this was done largely  for the benefit of the sanctioned user so as not to drag out the public spectacle longer than necessary when the outcome was already clear, and that another admin asked for someone to please do so. DrChrissy was only damaging their reputation further with their persistent, poorly reasoned  objections to comments by every single person who supported the tban, which we are now seeing right here as well, so you really aren't doing them any favors here.


 * As to the exact scope of the tban, unfortunately not everyone was explicit about that, but the rough consensus looks to me like biological and medicinal articles are the areas where there have been problems, while their editing elsewhere has been generally ok. Let's be clear here: It was not and is not my task to decide what, if any, sanction I believe is appropriate, rather and admin is there to evaluate what consensus was reached by the community and I believe I have done that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, I'm uninvolved and didn't comment during the discussion. If I had closed that discussion, I would have had to ping several people to ask them to clarify. It wouldn't have occurred to me to extend it to nonhuman animals, where DrChrissy is a subject-matter expert, because that was barely mentioned.


 * There seem to be three ways forward: (a) re-open the discussion so that people can continue to comment; (b) open a second discussion that asks whether DrChrissy should be topic-banned from animal behaviour/veterinary medicine; (c) ask another admin to review the close. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Beeblebrox, I am very sorry to say this but that is simply not good enough! You are now implying that your sanctions relate to "biological" articles!  So when I get up in the morning, what am I allowed to edit?  It definately is your task to decide on the sanction if you are taking on the resposibility of being the closing admin - there was never any discussion about "biological" articles.  You have to make a clear statement on this. DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just "unbreviating" the term "biomed". It does not represent a change in the tban, which I am pretty much done discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * DrChrissy, there was consensus for a topic ban from altmed. There may have been consensus for a topic ban from all human biomedical articles (that would include biology articles related to human beings). As I see it, there was no consensus for, and barely a mention of, a topic ban from animal behaviour and veterinary medicine. Probably the best you can hope for now is that the latter is clarified so that you're allowed to continue editing in that area. Being angry with Beeblebrox won't help your situation. These discussions aren't easy to close. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think DrChrissy may have overreacted, but that is unsurprising given the speed with which Beeblebrox closed the discussion and seemingly ignored the statements of a sizeable number of editors (including myself). The suggestions put forth by User:SlimVirgin seem reasonable to me, and I sincerely hope Beeblebrox might consider them. - A1candidate  23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Beebelbrox. If my language was harsh I apologize. I know only a little of Dr Chrissy, made a few cmts on acupuncture an area I have almost no experience with, was treated to intimidation on my talk page after posting on the RfC and was very aware as were other editors of the vitriol on the Acupuncture talk page, not created by Dr Chrissy, and which leaked over somewhat to this RfC. So in all, I have particular view of this situation. I realize there are hard closes and that it takes guts to close when you might be attacked from either side. I didn't intend an attack. I don't agree with you, especially on the extension of the sanction, but respect that the close was an honest, and probably courageous act on your part. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC))


 * I disagree with the idea that the ban being extended to vetmed articles, DrChrissy has been a valuable contributor there and a reasonable voice for the principles of alternative medicine, where there is more openness in the veterinary world than in the human medical world. (Or as my own vet likes to say, "Can't hurt, might help") This was raised, closed and done in less than 24 hours, I certainly would have !voted to oppose had I even gotten to it. (Distracted today by the 2015 Preakness Stakes, that's my excuse). I am very concerned with the tone and approach used whenever someone raises issues about alternative medicine on WP - even recent creationists get treated with more respect at the evolution articles (usually a quick revert and a request to not edit-war) than do people suggesting that the more-researched forms of alternative medicine might be something short of utter bunk and hokum - on the articles about those topics.  Sorry Beeblebrox, that this discussion has erupted at your talk, but you were the one who closed the case.  I do think the exclusion of animal topics is premature.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: Another administrator (Doc James) has requested that this topic ban be limited to human medicine only. See discussion on User_talk:DrChrissy. - A1candidate  14:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely, it would appear. Brunton (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the parameters and duration of the topic ban at User_talk:Doc_James. You're of course free to join me there, but in the meantime, Beeblebrox needs to reopen the original topic at WP:AN/I for a centralized discussion. - A1candidate  15:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that this needs to be centralized, because people are discussing it in several places. Beeblebrox, please re-open. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the consensus at ANI is two-fold. A topic ban on articles that fall under wp:medrs and a topic ban of articles related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I'm not sure if this includes veterinary medicine, but it does seem to include acupuncture in animals. These are also community imposed sanctions. Beeblebrox, it would seem, can only modify them based on the consensus. My reasoning is based off WP:UNBAN and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. They didn't impose them, they just applied them. If you can provide them with a logical basis based off the ANI discussion they can review that and change it based on their findings. Beyond this, to my understanding, anything else would have to be taken to one of the locations listed at WP:UNBAN so a new consensus can be made. The locations seem to be WP:ARCA, wp:ani, wp:an, or WP:A/R. For both arbcom related boards, Note the committee generally considers appeals of community sanctions only if there were serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, as discussed here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the ani does take into account animals. One user contends that DrChrissy has made productive edits at animal related articles and that allowing them to continue to edit them would allow them to further their competence with MEDRS and could eventually show justification to have this ban lifted. Other users support that DrChrissy has made useful edits to animal articles. SandyGeorgia seems to be the only editor to dispute this. They provide diffs. This topic ban doesn't seem to be intended as punitive. Other sanctions could have been added. The community acted only with the minimal need to end disruption. The consensus seems to be to topic ban DrChrissy from areas where their competence is in question. If they have shown competence in certain animal related articles perhaps there should be an exclusion. It does seem there may be some exclusion intended in the consensus. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So can Beeblebrox please clarify the extent of these exclusions as requested by DrChrissy? - A1candidate  16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Beeblebrox, I've opened an AN/I to discuss whether the ban extends to animals: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Restore Anal Gestapo page
Please, restore Anal Gestapo page, it is important for Turnbonegro and Turbojugend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.124.204 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More relevant Anal Gestapo pages:
 * http://www.redunion.info/tjns/glavna.htm
 * http://www.groupie.hr/turbo-riesling-anal-gestapo-u-novosadskoj-crnoj-kuci-petak-30-11/sadrzaj/1811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.124.204 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As an adminsitrator, my task was not to decide for myself whether the article should be deleted or not, but rather to evaluate the consensus at the deletion discussion. Arguments based on Wikipedia policy are given greater weight, which is why the article was deleted. So, bearing that in mind I think you can understand why it was deleted and why I have no intention of restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
i really wasn't sure how or if that racino stuff was ever going to end. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just caught up on that, and appreciate you dealing with it. It went where I imagined it was going from the beginning.  No fun, so sad :/  Thank you, again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Nobody wants to do ablock like that, but they need to be done. They also seem to have used, which I have not blocked... yet...if they pop up and begin editing with it let me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Hello B. I saw this edit so I wanted to let you know that the same person had added a post here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard in case you wanted to remove it as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like others have already zapped it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request
Actually, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if someone on Arbcom came right out and said "no, we read your complaint, and, by denying it, we were pretty much taking the position that the comments were not personal attacks". I think it would be useful for A1candidate to see that written down instead of being expected to infer it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabriel Andrijausco
Hi.

You were the admin who placed User:Gabriel Andrijausco under an indef block. This editor has no re-appeared to use his talk page User talk:Gabriel Andrijausco as a wb host for a fantasy version of the the 2015 Eurovision song contest. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. Rarely have i seen such cluelessness. Edits reverted and nuked, talk page access revoked. thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. When you removed the versions from the history I think you missed one. The "11:21, 24 May 2015‎ DumbBOT" one contains all the nonsense too and is still visible. Mr Potto (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right you are, zapped it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol
Thanks(talk) I am really happy for that gesture this will go a long way to help me in creating more articles. Regards--Rberchie (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Paul Banks (custodian)
You may have something to contribute to this, thought I'd let you know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was commenting there as you were posting this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One good WP:SNOW deserves another
Hey, since I seem to have made a good call on Articles for deletion/Comlife Investments, I don't suppose you could return the favour on Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Editors are almost foaming at the mouth, even though the AfD can technically cover another day or two, I've never seen that many delete !votes before! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin beat me to it, but I certainly would have deleted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Greendondo/OAK Racing
Just curious why you removed the U5 tag from this. I previously removed it after explicit assurances that they would work on it, and add it to an article. It seems clear they aren't working on it like they promised, and so Jaaron95 and I agreed that the tag should be readded- as I was the person who removed the tag previously, shouldn't I be allowed to reinstate it? If not, then I'm happy to go to MfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my edit sumarry, there is no deadline. U5 applies to material that seems to have nothing to do with Wikipedia. This material was fomratted in wiki-tables and the user explicitly stated they intend to add it to an article eventually. Per WP:AGF,U5 therefore simply does not apply. The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately narrow in their scope, much narrower than the standards at xfd processes. This isn't that old so I'm not even sure WP:STALEDRAFT would apply. As a point of reference, we give AFCsubmissions six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll wait exactly 6 months and when they haven't touched it, it can be a G13. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be taking the time to read and comprehend what i have said before replying, either to this remark or the original decline. It would still have to go through MFD. These are proposed edits not a whole new proposed article. As I said, that's just a point of reference to give you some idea of how long we normally let such things lie before deleting them. I'm not sure why you want this deleted so badly, it's not harmful in any way that I can see or I'd delete it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was a U5 before, but they explicitly told me they weren't using Wikipedia as a web host, which I no longer believe. Seems like they were using my good will to keep their stuff on Wikipedia as a free web host. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a mistake when you take something personally like that. They may just be busy, or forgot all about it, or any number of other perfectly innocent reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re page deletion
Hello B. After a report at AIV you blocked and speedy deleted the nonsense they had put on their talk page. I am wondering if the sandbox they created User:Banme552/sandbox should also be deleted. I thought about putting a G5 tag on it but, since I didn't know the user name that this person might have edited under before, that tag might not have been the right one to use. I know that there is more leeway with sandbox pages - even those created by blocked users so I thought I would check with you about the situation. I also know that, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't that big of a deal so if it is okay to leave the sandbox as is that is fine as well. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is basically no chance that a user whose stated goal is to get blocked or banned hasn't been blocked or banned already. Knowing which of the thousands of blocked or banned trolls this isnt necessary to delete it, which I have just done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I sorta thought that would be the case but I also thought it worth getting your input. I appreciate you filling me in. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

View counter
Hello Beeblebrox, would you happen to know why the view counter isn't working? It is stuck on the 24th of May. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea. Sounds like a problem for WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi, how are you?

Well, thanks! Happy week, MYS  77  ✉ 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sunnistan
Thanks again for your help at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_4. I tagged another redirect I found for CSD G5, per your advice. That redirect was deleted, but I found a lot more content that should be deleted. As I found them, I started posting them on the admin's talk page that deleted the first one because it was easier than individually tagging each one (which is a ridiculously tedious task). However, that admin is now busy with real life (see here). I figured you would be the best person to finish this task because you made the initial deletions. Anyway, the list that I compiled is below, feel free to go through it all (Let me know if you can't or don't want to go through them because then I'll probably just bite the bullet and tag them myself.) Tavix | Talk 23:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Kuwii hinugu yiri - a few redirects, a couple categories
 * Special:Contributions/23 year old bored guy - 13 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Scratched those bonduns - few redirects, few categories
 * Special:Contributions/Run hewdgf - four redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Needwaternpepperpls - 8 redirects + Sunando Sen
 * Special:Contributions/I'm feeling slightly mellow - 15ish? redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Pulled u policc - 2 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Landedon myshowdr - 4 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Northsouthblock - 7 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Letitbefelt - 3 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Buggeybagge_look-a-like - 7ish redirects, 1 category, 1 article
 * Special:Contributions/Hhplactube - few redirects, few categories
 * Special:Contributions/World bymyself - few redirects, several categories
 * Special:Contributions/Eriwawo - 3? redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Jartgina - 2 redirects
 * Special:Contributions/Depressed_my_entire_life - 10 redirects, 1 article, 1 template


 * Ugh. I'll chip away at it, but it looks I'll be fairly busy I real life the next day or two, it might get done faster if you tag all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really concerned with it being done soon, just that it happens. I'll ping as well, because he helped out with this yesterday. Tavix | Talk  16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * * sharpens knives* I'm on it. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mostly. I left a few things alone for one reason or another, and it seems I wasn't alone working on these. Salafi Muslims seemed unambiguously helpful, and thus not worth deleting. Category:Critics of Shi'ism has been decently populated, and I figured I'd just let the community decide its viability naturally (I did put in a speedy renaming request). Eriwawo moved Non-denominational Muslim to Nondenominational Muslim, which seems trivial. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Riot City Wrestling
Hi Beeblebrox. Thank you for the correction to the user name procedure, and thank you also for blocking the user. I didn't know you had and went to UAA, and the helper bot there confirmed your action. I did see on the user's talk page that you had formed the view that an AfD would be appropriate. I wondering if you could actually start that. I can't, because I have natural bias against that promotion (we do have a history and my involvement with that would be seen as a COI issue). I can't even vote on it - not that votes matter of course in a consensus. Thanks in advance. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Articles for deletion/Riot City Wrestling. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)