User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 32

Hi Bee, thanks for your recent change to Maya Angelou. I disagree with your changes, though; the two paragraphs you omitted contained some important information about Dr. Angelou's poetry, like her recitation of her inaugural poem. I re-wrote the section after completing Poetry of Maya Angelou, and it's much shorter than what was there before. What do you think about putting it back? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The usual practice in such cases is to provide a brief summary and a pointer to the sub-article, so four long paragraphs seemed a bit excessive to me, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LlamaAl (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please answer mi e-mail? LlamaAl (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the behaviour related to a single IP hopping editor that is happening here here and here as well as on the associated talk pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is "IP hopping" is not equal to "using multiple identities for purposes of deceiving others" which would constitute socking. In fact, a user may be totally unaware they are even doing it, or they may be moving around during the course of their day while editing from a mobile device. If you have concerns about their editorial behavior I suggest you bring them up with the user or at a relevant noticeboard, but as far as socking goes there does not appear to be any evidence of an intent to deceive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP is confused and angry and is making wild and unreasoned attacks. He/she is causing considerable disruption across the three article I linked above, as can be easily seen on the associated talk pages. The attacks show no sign as abating. I know of no "relevant noticeboards" on Wikipedia that deal skilfully with behaviour like this from IP hopping editors. There is little point blocking them. Given that no administrative support seems available in cases like this, would you advise content editors to just walk away? Or could the article be protected from IPs? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ask me melodramatic leading questions like that. Asking one specific admin and not getting the reply you wanted does not equate to "no administrative support is available." Feel free to consider any of the following options:

• Talking to the user about the problem and trying to resolve it.
• Some form of WP:DR
• Report at WP:ANI
• Asking for protection at WP:RFPP

So you see, all sorts of assistance, both from admins and others, has been developed for you to turn to when you are unable to resolve something yourself, which as far as I can tell you have not actually tried yet.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but today is my first full day as a member of the arbitration committee. I'm kind of busy with the business the community elected me to deal with and not looking to take on additional problems at the very bottom of the dispute resolution ladder right now. I am every bit as much a volunteer as you are and am not obligated to do whatever you ask. That is exactly why we have centralized noticeboards for such issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah... I wasn't aware of WP:RFPP. Thank you for that, and apologies for being a nuisance. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic is lying, he has been defaming me on many pages, for example here and here. I have explained to him why I come from different IPs days ago.

Do you know what is the best place for reporting uncivil and disruptive behaviour like that? 124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year. Hope you got to abuse your new powers already. Thanks for serving: no good deed will go unpunished. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's a real hoot. Apparently it is a sort of tradition for various trolls, malcontents, and other blocked or banned users to immediately try their luck with/harass/threaten the new committee via email. It's delightful. But alas, no chance to abuse the powers just yet. I'm sure the opportunity will present itself soon enough. Of course I am handling it all like a boss. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice. OK, in that case, since you suffered enough, I'll give you fair warning: don't open the manilla envelope postmarked "Chattanooga", with the word "FRAGGILE" on it. It's a big old dog turd. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Fraggile"? Isn't that Italian? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you still had (or ever had) Chatanika, Alaska on your watchlist. A recent edit tipped me off to Quellcrist49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who went even further with Fox, Alaska. All since reverted, but who knows how much further this will go. The funny thing about it? There really are a number of properties alongside or within sight of the Old Steese which are genuine eyesores, and the "Ester lesbians" may be a metaphor for the folks who run borough government and receive complaints all the time about such places. Still, the way this was written falls somewhere in between a flight of fancy and a hoax. Letting you know concurrent with warning the user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I did see the "flaming arrow" thing, which I figured was just someone posting wild rumors. Looking at the fox edits it is much more apparent that it is deliberate vandalism, possibly straying into BLP territory, so I've revdeleted those edits. When I became an arb I nuked my watchlist, except for Alaska stuff and ArbCom stuff. Nice, cut and dried vandal fighting is kind a nice break from the complicated angry disputes that come to the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I submit a checkuser request for my own username? --Zyma (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser is a tool that is never used without a compelling reason, and I can't imagine any reason you could give for wanting to do that that would convince anyone to run a check. Presumably you already know where you are and what kind of computer and software you are using. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to move your comment - use a section heading similar to those used by Guy Macon or EatsShootsAndLeave. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is actually an arbitrator   --Rschen7754 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm actually an idiot. Sorry about that. And me an ex-Clerk! Double trouting! Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha. Lols for the day. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm as surprised as anyone that I'm an arb. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Beeblebrox, in a follow-up to the last time I ended up leaving a message on your talk page, I had found the page revolving around administrator hopefuls where I had to modify the part on my page so that it can be listed there. When it was done, my name was added to the "User with at least 30 edits in the last two months" section which is reserved for the active members. What's the link for those who are on that list to end up filling out the application information to become administrators like you? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:27, January 8 2014 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, you are looking for WP:RFA. It's not so much an application as it is a week-long test of your knowledge of WP policies coupled with a thorough review of your history here, especially your interactions with other users. The days when being and admin was "no big deal" are well and truly gone and the process now can be very discouraging of you aren't ready for it. If I were you, I would read WP:GRFA and consider very carefully what your chances are of passing the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides the punitive block that Nightscream did last month as part of the RFA's "have you been blocked in the past 6 months" comments, I did have earlier blocks because some contributors have been using my IP Account as seen in my block log. Luckily, there was a contact back then where I had to notify each administrator of this. I have reverted vandalism (with the latest one involving someone tampering with the page for Two-Face) and used edit summaries with my common edit summaries including "Adding details to history," "Adding details to plot," "Adding details to media appearance," "correcting some links," "Do you have proof of the information I just removed," "creating new page," and "making some additions/corrections." With help from Trivialist, I had to help keep some anonymous contributors from claiming that The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth was made by The Jim Henson Company (which the show I just mentioned is not of their creation). I have also been working on updating the episode guide for the episodes of Street Sharks that I have seen on YouTube even though TheRedPenOfDoom removed the character sections that were there way before he removed them. Did I leave anything out in the descriptions for WP:RFA? If so, please let me know. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:50, January 8 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are understanding what I have tried to communicate. An RFA is a sort of "torture test" where you will be sharply criticized by other users. They will be looking for a candidate who has some experience with admin-related processes such as WP:AIV or WP:AFD. They will be looking for solid knowledge of the deletion policy and the various ways that articles come to be deleted, as well as thorough knowledge of the blocking policy and an understanding of how it is enforced. They will be looking for a user who is able to communicate clearly and responds sensibly when their actions are challenged. You will be asked a dozen or more questions and even one wrong answer can can ruin your chances. It's quite an ordeal to go through, and if you do succeed that's when the real difficulties begin. It is not a process to be entered into lightly, and if you aren't thoroughly prepared for it you will almost certainly fail. Again, I would suggest you read WP:GRFA and consider whether this is really something you think you would succeed at right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. --Rschen7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 on the health psychology talk page called me a "troll." I would like him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He also called me a troll in a comment he made when editing the health psychology page. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Iss246 has posted on his 'talk page' masses of false, derogatory postings. He has called me a troll on his talk page, and made false judgements about my qualifications. He wrote this.."You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. He also called me stupid etc etc on his talk page User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. For the record, although it matters none, I hold a Doctorate in Psychology and am certainly not a troll. I have asked him to delete these extremely defamatory statements, in the past, but he refused, even after I corrected him and provided evidence to the contrary. Currently iss246 refuses to engage in discussion but rather post information that is based on a 1986 reference I have read today, that does not support his statements. Thank you for your time. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all sure why this has been brought to my talk page, but I will provide some advice for the both of you:

• Stop calling each other names, including "troll" or engaging in other personal attacks. That is never the way to solve a dispute, be it on or off wiki.
• Consider pursuing some form of dispute resolution
• Just to re-iterate, claiming any sort of real-life credential is irrelevant as we rely on reliable sources, not personal expertise.
• Consider whether this is really worth arguing over or if it might just be time for both of you to let it go.

hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

---For the record, I did not call Mrm7171 a troll. But four times on the health psychology page in a matter of days, he called me a troll. Iss246 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course you did iss246, on your User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. It is still there? The fact that I have a Doctorate in psychology is 'totally irrelevant.' I agree. And no iss246, I am not a troll. I feel embarrassed that you posted this on a busy administrators page also. So apologies to Beeblebrox. My exact words yesterday were, "let's stop the personal attacks and focus on editing." So fully agreed Beeblebrox.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. --Rschen7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Good morrning,

I'm not sure, if this is actually the right place for my request, but since CheckUser access is necessary to answer my question, and you apparently have just that, I suppose I could do worse than to try my luck here.

The situation is the following: For several years I have edited mass murder-related articles on Wikipedia, and created amongst others the List of rampage killers. On June 20, 2012 a user named KnaveSmig posted at my talk page, offering me to download an Excel-file supposedly containing his own compilation of mass murderers, as well as 16 hours of songs related to the subject. At the time I was unsure how to deal with this, on the one hand being curious about the possibly salvageable information, on the other hand being suspicious about downloading unrequested material from an unknown person and risking an infection of my computer with malware. In the end my suspicious side prevailed and I ignored the files, though contemplated for a while to write a reply to explain myself. Considering the matter not that important I delayed writing said reply until I came to the conclusion that too much time had passed to invest any effort in something the addressed person may not even read, after all KnaveSmig left no indication that he ever came back to Wikipedia.

Then the Sandy Hook shooting happened, and when information was published in the media that Adam Lanza had a pronounced interest in mass murder and created a spreadsheet listing historic mass murderers I already had a bad feeling in my guts. But then, during my studies of mass murders I have come across several people who have compiled similar lists, and there are probably a lot of others who do the same in less public places than the internet, so I composed myself thinking that this was just a coincidence, and there's probably no connection between KnaveSmig and Adam Lanza. Then information surfaced that Lanza had a Wikipedia account and edited several articles a couple of years earlier under a different name. I waited for the media to announce that Lanza had also used the alias KnaveSmig, but this never happened, and so I assumed my suspicions were probably unfounded.

It remained that way, until recent reports stated that Lanza had also posted at a forum dedicated to the Columbine massacre around the same time he had left the note on my talk page. The pseudonym he used there was Smiggles. And since the writing style of Smiggles is comparable to KnaveSmig's my suspicions are revived that the two may be the same person.

So, to cut a long story short, would it be possible for you to check if KnaveSmig's IP address is located in Connecticut, maybe even the Newtown area, and thus confirm or refute my suspicion that I have been contacted by Adam Lanza a mere six months before the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? This question is haunting me for about a year now, and I'd really like to get some closure on that one. Thank you. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

So, I have kind of a good news/bad news reply here. We'll start with the bad: I won't be running that check and I doubt anyone else would either. I do have CU access, but I only took in case I need during my term as an arb and I am not an active user of it. Being curious about something, even something spooky like this, is almost certainly not going to be accepted as a valid reason for doing such a search.

The good news is that despite all that I am pretty sure this was not him. If you search news reports about this you can find some where they dropped clues about specific edits, and if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you can figure out the username they are referring to, and this isn't it. The account that was suspected of being him edited articles about mass shootings, the account you mention never did. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suspected that my request may not go through, but I had to try anyway. The problem is, I already know Lanza's user name here on Wikipedia, but he used that in 2009/10 only a couple of times, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, if he forgot his password and created a second account later on for the single purpose of engaging in a conversation with me. I remember that back in June 2012 I've performed a quick Google search for the name KnaveSmig to find out if he is trustworthy, or just some kind of a prankster, but the search yielded nothing besides his posts on my talk page. Even then I wondered what Smig may stand for, and thinking that it's merely an abbreviated form of Smiggles seems just too plausible. Considering what I know about KnaveSmig and Lanza I think there's a reasonable chance that they are the same person, but I suppose I will never know for sure. Anyway, thank you for your time. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ron Duncan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@CrazyAces489: There appear to be several problems here.

• The DRV you filed does not seem to have been done properly and it looks like as a result a bot simply removed it. [1]

• You seem to misunderstand the purpose of DRV as well. It is only for reviewing the administrative decision to delete an article. You should only open one if you believe I misinterpreted the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Duncan.

• You are also claiming you started a new article from scratch, which is not actually the truth since I userfied the article for you when you asked me to [2].

So, you've got a technical problem, a policy problem, and a factual error there. If you believe the draft article is ready to be returned to article space you can just execute a WP:PAGEMOVE to return it, DRV is not the proper venue for pursuing that option. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to put it back into article space, but I don't want it to be speedily deleted. So I thought that deletion review would have been the best thing to do. Any ideas? CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you have made significant enough changes to it that it would not be speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article, and I don't think it would qualify for any of the other criteria either. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Any help in moving the page as well as cleaning up the page would be appreciated. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I get the 9 most recent revisions on my talk page deleted. The block has been lifted so there's no reason for it to be there. Finealt (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally a WP:RFO would be handled off-wiki, but in this case I think we can deal with it here since this is absolutely not something that qualifies for suppression, or even revision deletion. These are tools used to remove serious problems, not just edits you don't happen to like. You are of course free to just remove the content from your talk page, which it looks like you have already done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=592190539&oldid=592184696 I'm disappointed.

I voted for you, and I'm sure I've supported you in the past.

That comment is disgraceful. There are bigger things than being seen to conform. I used to think you knew that. Shame on you - I guess it's true what they say about power - if only it was real power, eh?

You're not the first person I've seen this happen to, but I so hoped for better from you.

Ah, well...Disappointed. Begoon ^talk 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything that in that comment that has to do with "being seen to conform." This is about the right way and the wrong way to approach such an issue when you object to it. Unilaterally modifying an office action with absolutely no prior discussion is pretty much guaranteed to cause a dramafest, and I know Kww knew that when he did this. So I guess we are both feeling kind of the same way, except I am disappointed in Kww and not myself.

There are over four million articles on WP, and only five that are subject to office actions. For those five articles, and only those five, nobody is supposed to ever modify those actions without the express permission of WMF staff. Nobody. I do not and have not supported the use of PC2 anywhere, and it may be that there is reason to ask the foundation not to use it even in an office action, but going ahead and doing it and then starting a discussion is exactly the wrong way to go about it. I

'Id like to see this end peacefully with nobody's head on the chopping block and I do think that is still possible despite the fact that he deliberately ignored a bright-line rule with the full awareness that he was doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The way to avoid any "heads on chopping blocks" would, it seems to me, then, to have been just to decline the case request. Any tit-for-tat motion inspired by Phillippe's improper reaction and foot stamping, especially given the history making it look like revenge, is unnecessary and divisive. If you don't like what Kww did, then leave him a note on his bloody talk page.

Anyway, as I say, thanks for the reply - we'll probably just have to differ on this - reasonable people can do that I guess. Begoon ^talk 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think if, as some suggested, the circumstances had been just a little bit different this all might have gone down differently. Like if there was an edit war going on or something and he stepped in and temporarily upped the protection to stop it I doubt anyone would have cared. Coming out of nowhere and just doing it without discussion and without any urgent reason to do so is what made this look like deliberate provocation. And it worked all too well. That is the crux of this as far as I am concerned, and the reason I support the admonishment. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok - as I say, we differ. Even given the "way it went down", while you guys are doing admonishments, one of those issued to Phillippe for the chilling effect and near WP:NLT of saying he'd "consulted WMF legal" about Kww's actions, his overall "Lèse-majesté" approach, and, fuck it, just overbearing non-collegial, threatening response in implying he'd summarily desysop but would rather arbcom did it for him, then openly suggesting Brad organised just that, might just seem a wee bit more balanced when hindsight comes to look at all this. I realise he subsequently climbed down from part of that podium in the face of reaction, but still... Anyway, I've taken up enough of this page, so I'll leave it there - thanks again for the discussion and responsiveness. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF and perhaps vote in the "votes" section to enable us to close the case.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've given up commenting on the case page. I'll just point out that when you have a WMF officer and an Arbcom member in apparent agreement that you need to be immediately desysopped, making your case visible and public is a defensive maneuver, not aggression.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.

1. Why do you impose a list of requirements, rather than just saying "I will block you if you ask me to"? (I am not disagreeing with you, just wanting to know your thoughts on the matter.)
2. In your experience, how often, if at all, do you get such requests?
3. Do such blocks ever cause problems of any sort, and if so, how? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The list of requirements is so that users understand that this is an unusual circumstance and they need to consider it very carefully before requesting it.

Possibly as a result of that, combined with the wikibreak enforcer, requests are pretty rare. once or twice a year is about it.

I've never had any serious problems with one. I did have one user who used an IP to come here and ask me to lift it early. I ignored them, and when the block was over they thanked me for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[3] You think you've got a problem? Autocorrect keeps changing my good curseword to mother fuchsia! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Hello Beeblebrox,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [4], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

The relevant section of policy is:

Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

Note the word "confuse". Its really quite a low bar. If a retired uses wish to return there are accepted mechanisms for them to do so. The block reason itself provides enough of a rational for a block and beyond that we are firmly in WP:DENY and don't template the regulars.©Geni (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Surely you understand the difference between creating new multiple accounts and deciding to no longer use an account at all? That is what is going on here, and it took me less than a minute to figure out the name of their former account, which they have made no attempt whatsoever to hide. We do not and can not force a user to use a registered account if they prefer not to. This user and myself have clashed several times in the past and I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for their positions on various issues, but, despite what you and Leaky seem to think, that does not make them a banned unperson to be blocked on sight. TEMPLAR does not apply to block notices and frankly that is an extremely weak argument that I doubt even you really believe. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

When you asked for the block review an WP:AN I think it is fair to say you may not have anticipated the considerable support for sanctions of some sort against the editor. So much is clear from the fact that you overturned the original WP:RBI block without prior discussion and reversed my WP:BE edit on one of his numerous IP talk pages. In accordance with WP:ADMINACCT I would appreciate it if you would consider the points I have raised in the discussion (you did ping me about it, thanks for that). Specifically, in view of the widespread support for action from editors who have been aware of Kumioko's behaviour for some considerable time, whether your initial block reversal without discussion with the Admin. was premature. Second, whether you now accept that my WP:BE was a perfectly acceptable response at the time. Whether you realise that your AN statement about Kumioko's switching from User to IP was misleading, in view of the overwhelming evidence available and now documented relating to multiple IDs and User edits being used interchangeably within discussions (although never as an outright sockpuppet). Simple, straightforward answers here would be fine if you prefer not to participate in the now WP:TL;DR discussion at AN. Anything other than WP:Bradspeak! Thanks. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The other stuff is debatable, but no, your attempt to force him to keep old notices on the talk page, which is not supported by the policy you are attempting to link it to, was flat out wrong. Editing one's own talk page is not block evasion. As we already discussed, the specific actions he took are explicitly permitted by policy and doing what you did is as petty as it is pointless. Beeblebrox (talk)

It isn't "his" talk page, it is an unregistered user. Thanks for ignoring the remaining (more important points) about your Admin. action and misleading summary. I asked for clarification per WP:ADMINACCT which you have failed to provide. Leaky Caldron 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a community discussion of these issues already underway, the accountability policy has already been more than satisfied. Frankly, you have come across as a petty bully in your interactions with both myself and Kumioko, including this interrogation. Your questions above are so full of loaded questions and false premises that I did not and do not see any value in point-by-point responses. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll not say what I think you come across as. Let's just say that some of those ACE Guides are pretty accurate. Leaky Caldron 18:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
Your choice is your choice, of course, but could I ask you to reconsider this? You made some good points, and it genuinely could be helpful if you were on the list in future. bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For me the experience has served as a reminder of why voluntary recall procedures fell out of use inthe first place. It's completely toothless and the subject is free to just alter the rules without discussion. I don't see the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would vigorously oppose any attempt to unilaterally change the rules. Recall may be imperfect, but we've got to work with what we've got.

Anyway, I don't want to badger you, and whatever approach you take, you still have my boundless respect :-) bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He actually already did change the rules. At first the list was comprised of 10 users, mostly people who had expressed skepticism at his last RFA. A few days ago he changed to 15 users and invited five new users to sign on. Actually I guess eh must have invited at least six since all the slots are now full, so it looks like either way I'm out. Thanks for your words of support. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox! I haven't been very active lately, but I just got an e-mail with the following contents, which I ignored, but I figured someone should know:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 76.18.17.166) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:

Username: Amaury Temporary password: ******

This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password. Amaury (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I presume that isn't your IP address Amaury? That IP has never made any contributions, so if it isn't your IP, that's a little odd (it suggests that a regular user is behind it, rather than some purely random joker) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gotten such messages several times. All it really means is that someone tried their luck and discovered that our password recovery system is not so poorly designed that it will just give out a password to any random person. It will only send a message to an email address that is already connected to a account, so there's no real need to worry. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was more curious than worried. I have strong passwords. Amaury (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

By mistake, I created 2 accounts, one with only my IP number 80.136.224.194. Can you delete that IP number from my question in wikipedia:Teahouse? Replacing it with my registered name would be ok, too. Thank you! Geometricjewels (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't actually have two accounts. You have the account you just registered, and you have an IP address you edited from a few times. We will suppress your IP if you are a registered user and you do not realize you are logged out and edit as an IP. However, that does not appear to be the case here. Your account was not registered until after you made those IP edits, and to fully remove all trace of the IP I would have to delete dozens of intervening revisions as well. What you can do is edit that section, replacing the IP address with your username, but that's about as far as policy can stretch to accommodate this request. For future reference, the best way to handle such situations is by emailing the oversight team as detailed at WP:RFO. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yuhoney20cute keeps recreating GG Next Top Model (either under that title or Gellang's Next Top Model). Since this isn't obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV, I thought I would ask you if you would, depending on which you judge to be the best decision, either block this account or salt the pages (or both). Also, her userpage is pretty much identical to the now-deleted article, so maybe that should be deleted as well. Jinkinson talk to me 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'm a bit surprised at an editor with your experience taking someone's comments so personally. I think J. Johnson's comments, right or wrong, were made in good faith. Unless you really want to waste your time, you'd do better to delete or cross out your trout comment and walk away as you originally intended to do. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I've got this right: the thing that bothers you the most is not that a user made up an inane theory that the entire article was constructed to support a single-sentence statement that was removed from the lead days ago by the very person who was supposedly the matermind of this dastadly plot, it is that I chose to point out the absurdity of that premise using a small drawing of a fish? I mean really, the debate about references is one thing, implying that the entire article was created to prove some point when that is provably false is something else. But you are right about walking away, I removed the page from my watchlist right after making that comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Me, too. The important thing is that you left the article better than you found it. Thanks for your hard work. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Characterizing your "tinfoil hat" and "utter lunacy" comments (and now, "load of nonsense", etc.) as referring not to me as an individual, but only to my argument, is specious; you have engaged in a personal attack. As you show no willingness to discuss the matter civilly I have referred this to the WP:ANI noticeboard. See WP:ANI#User:Beeblebrox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir;

What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?

What I do wrong to that IP ?

Is that IP correct ?

Best regards. --B20180 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• As noted at the top of this page, if you have business with the committee you should contact the full committee at WP:RFAR as opposed to just posting on individual user talk pages.
• The committee only gets involved in issues the community has already tried to resolve and failed.
• Your questions are hopelessly vague anyway so no matter where you post them I doubt you will get satisfactory answers.

In short, I don't have an answer to any of your questions and I doubt it is a matter for the committee. Perhaps try some lesser form of dispute resolution and try to be a lot more specific about exactly what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I notice you cited the opinion essay WP:OFFER as the rationale for an unblock at BASC. I'm curious as to why this essay has not yet been elevated to official guideline or policy and the process to be followed to give it official status. It seems as though it is widely accepted as site organizational law, even though it currently is not. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, the committee can not and does not make or modify policy. We can cite it as the advice we followed to help us arrive at a decision, but we cannot dictate that anyone else follow it. You are of course free to propose such a change yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have told you this one time, but I am interested in perhaps being an administrator someday. But I wanted to ask you this: Is it a stressful job? Do you come home from work assigned to a second, possibly more stressful job as a WP administrator? — Confession0791 ^talk 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are certainly times when it is like that, but admins are as free as anyone else to simply go do something else if WP is stressing them out. I can tell you that WP:RFA is probably more stressful than actually being an admin. It is sort of a torture test, if you can get through it you probably have thick enough skin to be an admin and put up with people being hypercritical of everything you do. Each admin's experience is colored by what area they choose to work in. For example, if your focus is on purely technical maintenance work you are or likely to be "under the radar" than an admin who deal mostly with behavioral problems at WP:ANI or closes lots of discussions such as at WP:AFD. Several of my colleagues at WP:ARBCOM are of a more technical bent and the least three months have been a sort of baptism of fire for them as to what it is like to work with/around highly problematic users. They seemed more upset than I was when a banned user threatened to have me killed after breaking all my bones and removing my genitalia. Having been a admin who has dealt with the full spectrum of behavioral issues over a period of about five years it was just another day at the office. So, it's highly variable. Some admins will take a break from admin tasks for a month or two and concentrate on content work, or their own real lives. It's all about what choices you make. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this is where not giving a fuck comes in handy. Otherwise it would be too stressful for me. :) — Confession0791 ^talk 20:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. I saw ARBCOM recently gave this vandal another chance. FYI, he is on another vandalism spree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is strange (and disappointing) that he asked for an unblock just so he can return to vandalising. Thankfully Paul Erik blocked him quickly enough. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In this edit, you seem to be accusing me of being a sock of Scheunemann.joshua. I hope you meant Openhacks instead.--Auric talk 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Auric. It's pretty clear from my perspective that the revert was of the infobox - and therefore Openhacks' edit, not yours. I don't think you have anything to worry about. Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you mention that in the Sock Puppet Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scheunemann.joshua/archive

Since I blocked Openhacks as a sock and did in fact say so at SPI I should think it would be pretty clear who the sock is. I didn't specifically mention that I did not think you were a sock because it never crossed my mind that you were. The SPI is already closed without any further action (I guess I should have been more clear that he used multiple socks in the past) so I don't think you have anything to worry about. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't be blaming autocorrect [5] when spelling a word wrong (amend has one "m"). NE Ent 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I was previously known as User:Celeste6566, but my username has changed to EmilyREditor. I just thought I would leave a short note to apologize for my poor behavior and immaturity 2 years ago. I have now matured and promise that I will be very trustworthy and try to work hard, to make up for my history of malicious actions. I also promise that I will not use sockpuppets any more; I will stick to one account for editing. Again, I'm sorry for all that I did and pledge to make a fresh start and work harder this time around. Thank you for being the awesome administrator you are. Hopefully we can maintain a better relationship as we collaborate to improve this encyclopedia. Is there anything I can do for you? EmilyREditor (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question, though. What happens when you click on "thank" right next to someone's edit? Here is an example: "(cur | prev) 01:38, 18 April 2014‎ C.Fred (talk | contribs)‎ . . (empty) (-34)‎ . . (rm templates - no longer blocked, plus removing other in conjunction with standard offer) (undo | thanked)"

EmilyREditor (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You apology is of course accepted and I am happy to welcome you back. The "thank" feature sends a notification to the person who made the edit letting them know that you thanked them for it. There is more information on how those notifications work at WP:ECHO. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome back, and the information about the thanks feature. I love that feature as spreading positive feedback is a great way to build community spirit. Is there any way for another user to reply to a "thank you" message sent with this feature? EmilyREditor (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they could reply on the talk page of the user who thanked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, thanks! And sorry if I disturbed you with those questions. EmilyREditor (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking through the history of Jim Zeigler and noticed that you made some helpful edits (this & a number of previous edits) promoting neutrality/sourcing on the article back in 2008. COI has become a major issue on this article again as the subject is currently running for office (currently the article is also up for AfD and I've noted some larger issues at a BLP noticeboard entry). Your opinion (esp. about maintainability) or any advice on curtailing the COI would be welcome. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I see an edit summary from you recently to the effect of "Joe Miller's non-notable children"? I hope you tuned into Alaska News Nightly this evening. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed it. Their website mentions he officially kicked off his campaign, no surprises there, but I don't see anything about the kids. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't catch the entire story. From what I heard, he gave a talk in Wasilla perhaps this past weekend, where he introduced several of his children as his new security detail. He then stated that they recently earned black belts in karate, meaning he wouldn't need handcuffs this time around.

Even though Miller brought his children into the spotlight for this occasion, they aren't the real story here. I can't help but notice an editor on here who has gone to great lengths to puff up the Alaska Dispatch, in response to a deal which AFAIK has only been announced and not finalized. Is there really that much difference between Alice Rogoff and the lady from the Vanderbilt family who was sponsoring Iditarod mushers a decade or so ago? Cut to the real point: if the deal does go through, Tony Hopfinger is poised to "be somebody". Is Miller just showing that he has cojones, or is he shrewdly picking a spot where he can gain support through polarizing voters? The story also said he was gaining in the polls.

Also, I never responded to you about the mayors. Maintaining and updating that information and keeping a consistent history is another way in which this can better serve as an information resource, even if you have to dig through revision histories to access historical information. With community articles, you have to do that anyway. I've made references lately to Flip Wilson and "The Church of What's Happening Now!". Lots of mentions of entities are wiped solely because the entity becomes defunct, regardless of how much of a "notability doesn't degrade" violation it constitutes. Hey, I'm probably going on too long at this point. I discovered that someone was including and updating Alaskan mayors on de.wiki some years back (maybe 2007–2009), which I found fascinating. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, one more thing. Back to doing research at EERL, and in doing so, found this. November 1973 AP wire story, wherein Whittier mayor Bennie Barker announces the city receiving title to Whittier's buildings from the military and future plans for the town. Amongst those plans was redevelopment of the Buckner Building into a ski resort hotel. I'll let you make your own jokes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I read your post on EllenCT's page along with User:Horologium's comment. I'd reply on her page but I'm trying to limit my interaction - wasted enough time. I thought you should know that this is not the first instance of this from her. See her evidence from this Arbitrationand her Proposal and the responses[6][7][8][9][10][11]. Baseless charges... Morphh ^(talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like EllenCT is expanding her off-topic forum shopping to include other editors that don't agree with her approach [12]. She did the same thing with Austrian economics arbitration per Morphh's example above. Mattnad (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am contacting you due to your ability to make deletions in edit logs on articles. The article in question is St Monica's High School and the revision to which I am referring was made on the '12:06, 29 April 2014'. The revision contains the name of a minor which is protected by UK law due to the nature of the case mentioned in the article. I feel that this mention could be harmful to the child and this edit should therefore be omitted from the logs immediately to minimise its exposure. It seems to me that the person who has made the edit has insider knowledge, perhaps somebody who knows child personally and seeks to embarrass or harass them. Their edit has already been undone by another user but I feel that it is the best course of action to remove its record entirely. Dopespawed (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've revision-deleted the contents of that edit as a WP:BLP policy violation. Thank you for reporting it, Dopespawed (and sorry for rushing in before you could do it, Beebs!). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like my work here is done. Thanks Fluff. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the poorly-written part. However, without even trying, I found coverage from ESPN and USA Today, a Facebook page and a page on the Muni's website. I'm in another discussion, in the case of the trooper killings, about dumping the fruits of web scavenging onto the encyclopedia with little or no regard for WP:NOTNEWS, even though my complaints/concerns about that practice are hardly limited to that topic. Unlike the articles affected by that, this one is developed enough to where I can't see how mentioning it could be overwhelming. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You got me, I didn't really do a search. I was going to tag it with ^{[citation needed]} but the sentence was so clunky I just zapped it. The trooper murders, it's awful of course, but I don't know that it is something we need to cover in depth. I assume you are talking about the three paragraphs dedicated to the subject in the article on Tanana? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (You were a participant in a talk-page discussion given as evidence in this discussion.) The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to acquaint yourself with this. Your view appears to be that I can't post about Austrian economics to a talk pages of a WP user because that talk page will become "related" to Austrian economics following my post. Do you see why that is circular reasoning? Also, do you see how absurd the consequences of your erroneous interpretation would be? One could never appeal Arbcom decisions, because once one posted her appeal, the page where one posted it would become "related" to Austrian economics.

For the above reasons, it's clear that the only logical interpretation of a TB is a ban from Austrian-related Wikipedia entries (and, perhaps, their associated talk pages). Of course, that doesn't mean that I couldn't be guilty of misconduct through edits to my talk page regarding AE. But it's illogical and absurd to read that as a per se violation of the TB. (I'm tagging User:Binksternet and User:Srich32977 in hopes that they will put aside their grudges and accede to the overwhelming illogical of their view.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think I will respond on your talk page rather than cluttering Beeblebrox's page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this with you. You are trying to Wikilawyer your way around this. Keep it up and see what happens. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the last few edits on Debby Ryan. I won't link for obvious reasons. Is that something that warrants revdelete?

You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Just Step Sideways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.