User talk:Beeblebrox

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Sennecaster 226 0 0 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 0 days, 17 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 23:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

please stay in the top three tiers

Lake Atna

Knowing how much effort you've put into things Alaska, especially your excellent photography, you may be interested to know there is now an article for Lake Atna, the ancient proglacial lake that inhabited the Copper River Basin. Do you by any chance have photos of Tahneta Pass, or any of the remnant lakes of Lake Atna, such as Tazlina Lake, Klutina Lake, or Tonsina Lake? Or, perhaps, any of the large dunes indicated in the article that are northeast of Wasilla in the Matanuska Valley? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks for letting me know, I imagine a number of my talk page watchers will be interested as well. Unfortunately I don't think I have pictures of any of those places. I've passed through the area a few times but not spent much time there. We tend to visit the more accessible lakes that can be safely navigated by a scanoe with a very small motor on it, so these places are kind of out of my league I'm afraid. I used to be the backwoods, pack in only what you can carry type by marriage and age have changed all that, we camp in a van and carry our boat on the roof now, and it's heavy enough that we won't hand carry it more than fifty feet.

I've been to and photographed a number of places on the borders of this area such as the Tangle Lakes, eskers and kettle lakes on the Denali Highway, and Gulkana Glacier if that's any help. I didn't know about the dunes either, that sounds like something I'd like to check out in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I know you've gotten photography elsewhere in the basin than places I mentioned. This photo comes to mind. The problem is that I can't, with cites, prove that any of the lakes other than the ones I listed are remnants of Lake Atna. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Lake Louise is a remnant lake, but I can't prove it with available refs. Gulkana Glacier certainly had a role in the lake's history, but it's barely mentioned in refs. I don't want to presume. Same goes for the Matanuska Glacier. If you happen to go through Tahneta Pass again please, if you would, grab a shot...preferably a panoramic one if you can manage it. Most people wouldn't photograph it; what photographs there are of the pass show it to be, by Alaska standards, pretty non-descript. Yet, it was a glacial dam failure in that pass that caused one of the largest megafloods in history. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the area around the Eureka Roadhouse, which appears to be in that pass, is quite spectacular. I suppose I've never taken any pictures there because I'm always just driving through on my way to or from somewhere else, although I've stopped at the roadhouse for gas a number of times. There's a possibility I will be out that way in late summer/early fall, when I often go on an extended camping trip, if so I'll keep this in mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Where I've seen the glacial dam indicated is ~5-6 miles west of Eureka Roadhouse. Let me know if you photograph the pass in that area! Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.

That was going on for far too long. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

I know that you probably really don't want to deal with this, but I do have a question regarding the ANI thread you recently closed on that page. Thank you for the closing, and for your attention to the request. Unfortunately, as I already indicated on that page, if you are allowing the possibility of a request for arbitration, I probably won't be able to file it myself until Monday, as I kind of indicated there, given the lateness of the day here already today. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can recall from previous conversations, filing an arbcom request i usually considered a valid exemption to an iban. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page, more or less indicating that I saw the link as per accidentally hitting the wrong link. Also, I suppose, if someone were to make a case of it, might it be considered reasonable to review edits by a person one is taking to arbcom for possible case use, and, if one saw edits in violation of sanctions that way, would be not be permitted to mention them? Granted, that isn't what happened; like I said, in the multiple edits I made to the ARB request I accidentally hit something I wasn't intending to and saw this.

And, while hitting "watchlist" I saw this comment from a supposedly retired editor who is already subject to a joint i-ban with as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would advise that you take the talk page of a user you are ibanned from off your watchlist. You are either being disingenuous or really do not understand the purpose of an interaction ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It really only went back on my watchlist after the thirty-day block and apparent "retirement" two years ago. Considering he had earlier changed his name from Ovadyah to that already, it struck me as reasonable to keep it on the watchlist so that I would know if he changed his name again, so I would know to avoid him under whatever name he might take then. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot of convenient excuses. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Or, maybe, a willingness to make an effort to avoid trouble if possible? John Carter (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as they have been under a self-imposed block for almost two years now that isn't very compelling.

I think you may now finally be getting the impression that whatever you may feel about your actions, the community does not see it your way. There is a limit to the amount of time the community is willing to invest in a user who needs so many special rules just for them, especially when they break those rules. I would suggest that you are right at the razor's edge right now. The best thing you can do, for yourself and for Wikipedia, is to completely ignore anyone you are banned from interacting with. That's the lesson an iban is meant to teach you, but you have obviously failed to grasp it so far, and now it looks likely you are going to be blocked for a while as a result. I wouldn't expect to be let off so lightly if you violate it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

CENT

Hi Beeblebrox, do you mind if I restore this? It has BLP implications, which I why I posted it at CENT. I'd have made that clear, but I knew it would be changed if I did that, so it isn't clear what the issue is. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: My apologies, I somehow totally missed this comment until just now. I am very concerned about the precedent this would set as we don't normally list any sort of xfd discussion on CENT, and it seems to have grown to enormous lengths anyway so it looks like plenty of people are in fact aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. I take your point about XfD, and I see people are discussing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPR#Make PC2 no longer available to admins

It's been closed so i can't reply there but ... yes, a long ride. Good to see you're still active in these things. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you block John Carter?

[1]

Less than a week after the IBAN was put in place, John Carter kept following my edits, and opened a bogus AE request against me despite the fact that ArbCom had already clarified that edits like the one he reported were not covered under my TBAN.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look a few sections up, you can see where he asked me about this and I indicated that filing such a request is usually considered an exemption from a iban, although I must admit I thought we were talking about a WP:RFAR request for a full case. I would suggest you just tell arbcom that you believe the request is flawed and leave it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking a little closer this isn't really ok, and I've said so at AE and his talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The expectation was that a significant block would be forthcoming if either party abused the interaction ban. This is as blatant as you get and the AE request clearly shows they are stalking Hijiri, since it doesnt look like you or the admins at AE are going to take action on it, I have raised it at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was commenting there as you were writing this. It is often the case in these circumstances that we give the user exactly one warning that they re violating the ban and not to do it again, which is the approach I chose. I don't think an ANI thread on top of three or four concurrent discussions is helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I dont think John Carter blatantly harrassing Hijiri in defiance of a community imposed ban is helpful. But thats his problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is not helpful. It is petty and childish, and I've said as much to him. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Now if only someone would say the same to OID. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even American and I'm worried about you guys.

But any names that get mentioned are likely to get their entries here carpet-bombed, so... HalfShadow 03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UAA

Hi, I've noticed recently you've been declined reports of possibly promotional usernames with no edits. I just added a new parameter to {{UAA}} for this sort of case, so that you don't have to type what you want to say manually. You can use {{UAA|wp}}, {{UAA|waitp}}, {{UAA|waitpromo}} or {{UAA|waitspam}}. Hope it helps. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Linguit111: I think this is basically a good idea, but in its present form I don't think it quite sends the right message. When I decline these specific types of reports, I'm declining them, as in no action needed, do not transfer to holding to be reviewed again in a week. If it was modified to better reflect that I think it would be very useful. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So, how about I change it to "Not a blatant violation of the username policy. For a username to be blatantly promotional, there must be a link between the username and the user's edits. Consider re-reporting if the user edits promotionally."? Linguist^talk|contribs 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Added ({{UAA|np}}, {{UAA|nop}}, {{UAA|notp}}, {{UAA|nopromo}}, {{UAA|notpromo}}, {{UAA|nospam}}, {{UAA|notspam}}). Linguisttalk|contribs 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wykipedia

Thanks to you and User:Bbb23 for replying to my query at ANI re Wykipedia.

I'd like to be kept posted on progress, if possible.

Also, for future reference, what's the correct forum for such queries?

It may be quite innocent, but if not, their holy grail is probably an admin password (or better). In view of this, would a message to Wikipedia:Administrators/Message list be appropriate?

Or do you think all admins should be canny enough not to fall for it anyway? It does look quite slick and dangerous to me, and I've had several friends whom I would have thought were very savvy fall for Nigerian or ransomware etc scams over the years. Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew, both Beeblebrox and I are functionaries, but Beeblebrox is more "politically connected" than I am. Nonetheless, in different ways we both made the Foundation aware of the website, and as you can see at ANI post-closure, they are. I'm sure opinions would differ, but I wouldn't send a mass message to all admins. Most aren't even active anyway. The Foundation knows how to notify editors if they think it's appropriate. You got the ball rolling, and thanks for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Bbb23. (Perhaps we should shift to your own talk page or mine if it continues but I'll reply here for the moment.)

I did notice that you both have had higher roles. But is there as better way of contacting "back office" over such matters? It's going to happen again. It's a jungle out here! I thought this was urgent enough to abuse ANI, and it worked well. But I had a good look at en:Wikipedia and the Meta first and the correct channel was not obvious. I'm not a great user of chat or facebook, the Wiki and email are my main Internet activities. But happy to develop other skills if needed. (But I'd rather be improving the article space more directly, either by using the mop or by actually working on articles. Our earthly lives are a finite resource.)

I admit that I'm now long retired, but my professional career was mainly in computer security in some way or other, and this did concern me as fairly urgent. Even if most of the admins are inactive (and that's also a concern, and perhaps explains why the last bevavioural issue I raised at ANI was auto-archived with no evidence that any other admin had even looked at it - but there does appear to be a bit more activity there now) their passwords are still valuable. Completely inactive users won't have their passwords captured obviously, the ones I'd be most looking for were I the ungodly would be ones that logged on occasionally and then disappeared again for a week or more.

Anyway, not the end of the world or of Wikipedia, and now in the right hands I'm sure, and thanks again to you both. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: We can use Beeblebrox's Talk page. It'll make him feel needed. There's a general wikimedia e-mail you can use, but I don't know how quickly that box is reviewed. The other thing you can do is look at the list of editors at Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, pick one who looks important (heh), and leave a message on their Talk page, although e-mailing them might be faster, depends on how frequently they're on-wiki. There are also e-mail lists, and I don't know all of them. For example, even though you aren't a functionary, you can e-mail the functionaries e-mail list anyway. It'll just take a bit longer because it has to be moderated before it's released to the list members. I still think contacting the entire admins corps to be overkill, but that's just my opinion. I'm the guy who doesn't buy burglar alarm systems for my house, either. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, email is almost always the fastest way tot get the attention of the foundation. They have replied that this is definenently not hosted by them and they are looking into it further. Given that it was pretending to actually be Wikipedia, that probably means the legal team is going after them. I've never seen anything quite like that before, after looking at it for a few minutes, it actually did seem to log me in using WP:SUL, without me actually entering either my username or password, but if I actually tried to do anything it redirected me back to Wikipedia. Not sure what their game is, but I have WP:2FA on my account so it's pretty secure. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK... and I have now emailed some off-wiki comments to User:Bbb23 who is of course free to pass them on to "back office" and/or to yourself.

email is ideal, but I didn't find an obvious link to use for this... where should I have looked?

I could still be wrong, but this has all the look and feel of fraudulent sites that financial and online sales websites deal with regularly, and having been involved with the security of such institutions in my former career, I still think it's serious and that part of the solution is a warning to those who are targeted. That is standard industry practice. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the time, the office ends up contacted exactly in this way, someone posts something here, administrators see it, and contacts the relevant person. Who to contact is usually situation-specifc and contacts are identified at specific pages, for example WP:OFFICE lists the two people I've been in contact with about this, (although office actions are another issue entirely, they are the community liaisons) whereas WP:EMERGENCY lists the emergency contact account that (so I'm told) will immediately alert someone from the head office, day or night, to immediately address the problem. But again, most of the time it goes just like this did, where a user reports it, and an admin or functionary sees it and thinks "this is above ny pay grade" and refers it to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is finding it (WP:OFFICE). If you don't know it exists, it ain't easy. You'd think there'd at least be a link to it from the Main Page Contact Us page, but there isn't. BTW, Andrew, the reason I didn't respond to your e-mail was because I really don't have anything more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those. Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm doesn't seem relevant to this situation and is of strange status... originally an essay (top importance but still an essay) the essay notice has been removed but it's still in an essay category.

Wikipedia:Office actions probably should be a little more prominent... I hadn't read it for a while, and had forgotten that there were links there that I could have used. That was the page I wanted in fact.

I do review the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list from time to time but have found Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators is often more up to date and/or helpful. There is a lot that admins need to be up on... for example I am most active on RM (having seen over the years that this was typically the biggest admin backlog), but the advice at wp:emergency is to contact any admin, so all admins need to be up to speed on it. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on editing restriction

Hi, Beeblebrox. I like your multi-level triangle.

I'm trying to respond to the case of possibly ending my indefinite editing restriction.

I had long been wanting to appeal the restrictions, but wasn't sure how to do it or whether I had any chance of succeeding. In any case, I think I may finally have learned how to "go with the flow" and "not insist on my own way" when disagreeing with others about how NPOV should be applied.

Now that 10 years have passed - has it really been that long? - I'd like to be able to edit articles touching on intelligent design and the Unification Church again. I promise to be gentle and yielding, okay?

Is there some part of the arbcom page that I'm supposed to (or allowed to) post the above comment? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is at WP:ARCA, and it's basically a done deal at this point. A few of the arbs have commented that they wanted to hear from you directly, but once you made basically this same post on your talk page they were pretty much on board with it, but it is still open if you have anything to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment at VP on hyphens

I get it: you just don't like the micro approach to style. But might I suggest that you'd be the first to complain if watching a film that was not edited smoothly according to well-established rules. Micro matters. Tony (talk)

If the only rule they were ignoring was which small horizontally line to use, I probably wouldn't notice, so no, I don't think it matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2

Unblock

Hi Beeblebrox, I've unblocked JMC89 bot following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bot_removing_headings_.2F_comments_from_infoboxes.3B_Bot_creator_ignoring_requests_to_fix_the_problem - the offending task is now disabled pending resolution at WP:BON. If you strongly disagree feel free to reblock without WHEEL concerns (but please follow up at BON if you do). — xaosflux ^Talk 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record that's fine with me, it was as much to get the bot op to take it seriously as anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting access to deleted article

A request was sent my way for information on a startup. I replied to the person making the query they should start with Bloomberg, then Inc., the startupgrind, then wikipedia. Their response was an affirmative on the first three, but a zero on the wikipedia.

After confirming with my own search, I came up with the following: an AfD on the subject.

I am an academic editor (former prof), now in the e-business/digital business startup world, but I continue with the service editing that I did when I was at my last university. I would like access to the earlier article draft, and cannot seem to lay my hands on it. Can you send me a link? I want to see what the issues were.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no link, because the article was deleted, but if you are interested in trying to improve it I can WP:USERFY it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Please do USERFY, thank you. Will look for directions here to access. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure

You closed the following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ad_hominem_at_Talk:Donald_Trump on the premise that it was before boomerangs would ensue. For this to occur there must be a policy violation on my side. There is none, so I am completely befuddled as to what you are referring to. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

because you were making a big deal out of nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a policy violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ADHOMINEM followed by reverts of any attempts to follow routine procedure in such cases. To say it is a making a big deal out of nothing is to ignore the seeming credibility gained by smearing the dissenting party in a content dispute. I gave clear examples of the user ignoring my requests and references to policy, while he wrote an incorrect and derogatory message on the talk page. I would never have taken it to AN/I had he not requested I do so. This is a case where following the rules results in a win by the rule-breaker. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with you that there was a violation there. Let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd

Ok, not to be rude, but wtf just happened?...? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OVERLINKING and redirect problems Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi Dear Admin

Please review my last report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents,

Sincerely, Modern Sciences Modern Sciences (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussions started by socks of banned users

While there's nothing wrong with removing unresponded discussions started by banned users, please don't remove discussions which were responded by users in good standing. In stead, please simply collapse them, with a comment that the OP is a sock of a banned user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure this falls within the realm of administrative discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply made

…regarding USERFYing Everipedia, see above, thank you. Fine with me to delete this entry after it catches your attention. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, it is now at User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your VPP closure

(Discussing this) - Could you create a phab ticket and perhaps put it in the section using {{Tracked}}. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This would be why my closure specified "whatever technical changes are needed to actually do it." I barely even know what you mean, and I'm afraid I don't really know how to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that JJMC89 did it. As a short explanation, it is kind of like a hub where developers discuss technical tasks (see WP:PHAB). Then, if something technical is requested in the task (sometimes, tasks are only for discussion) a patch is usually uploaded to mw:Gerrit. If there are no issues with the code, the patch is merged into the code and might take effect at a swat deployment. It's all very confusing and I still am learning new things, but I hope I gave a basic summary of it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

IP editions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi please review this IP address editions. None of the Admins check this IP's editions. for example this one thank you. Modern Sciences (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you are asking. What is wrong with that edit, exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What it is wrong with this edition that IP reverses it.

Modern Sciences (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

They explained their reasoning in their edit summary. If you disagree, the first step is to talk to them about it, not report them to an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this user has had issues with multiple people, and is the subject of an open ANI thread destined for inevitable archive. See also here where the IP does a fairly commendable job of trying to explain things through the fairly obvious English issues. And I'll just say you're not the first admin he has tried to get to intervene in his content disputes. TimothyJosephWood 21:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: what is wrong with this editionModern Sciences (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you able to read and understand the other user's edit summary when removing it? Because, again, they explained themselves and if you don't agree you should talk to them about it. Be sure to clearly express why you added it and why their stated reason for removing it was incorrect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some questions of a new blood :)

Hi , and thanks for your friendly wellcom. I am new to wiki , as a registered member, i just used to search topics in as an encyclopedia. But then i decided to do more as it is realy a valuble achaivment for all humankind. I will need plenty of time to learn the basics, but somthing has baffled me, somebody frequently rollsback a page , a usual one about a small town, the content wich was lost was just some information about cordination and natural conditions of the place, so i couldn't find a reason why somebody rolls it back evry time, then i searched about admins and the pre-requirements of becoming an admin, a high edit count!!! Then i guessed maybe the person doing this is just trying to rise his edition counts to look an active member, it seemed dangerus to me, as during such a process he may sacrifice valuable informations. Is that a real treat to wiki as i feel or not? If yes why it (high edit counts) is considered as a condition to become an admin , as it may encurage some immature personalities to harm the project. Thanks a lot . Elsid-h (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What is expected of admins is experience. One measure of that is number of edits, but other factors are how long someone has been contributing, and much more importantly what they have actually been doing. You could have all kinds of experience, and still not be suited for administration. It's not for everyone and it requires a certain temperament and evidence of good judgement. So, just pumping up your edit count by reverting people is pretty unlikely to get you adminship.

It's hard to be any more specific about the exact edits you are referring to without a WP:DIFF or at least an idea of what article or articles you are talking about, but generally the right approach when you see edits you don't agree with is to try and discuss the matter with the other user or users involved. See WP:BRD for more about that. You'll find that most users are perfectly willing to explain why they did something if you just ask them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Last plea for help from you.

Blatant forum shopping. This is a content dispute, I'm not going to unilaterally ban anyone over it, and it's pretty ridiculous to repost an entire noticeboard thread on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently finding it very difficult to be an editor at Wikipedia and am saddened by the lack of support from Administrators. Therefore, this is the last plea I make to you before I give up on this site all together. I posted this on the Wikpedia:Administrator's notice and have been given no help at all : "I have requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You. Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)" These are the replies I have in turn been given : "We generally don't ban people when they're actually correct. And especially not due to reports that contain multiple factual inaccuracies. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)" "Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)" My complaint was subsequently shut down for the second time on the Administrators page after that. I would also like to say that : 1) Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was absolutely in the wrong and there was profound bias from his side, 2) Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never once stated reliable sources on the talk page, you can see this for yourself, 3) I have no "misunderstanding" of any source I user and I have not ignored him at all, in fact, I have tried discussing it with him on his talk page and he has deleted the section I created and 4) There are complaints on his talk page(which you can again see for yourself), although he has deleted a lot of them as well as deleting the warning you gave him the last time he engaged in edit warring and he has also deleted the two notifications I sent on his talk page informing him that there was a discussion about him on the Administrators noticeboard. I ask you for the first and last time to please look into this matter as I really want to help improve this great site but I am finding it impossible to do so with these two users and their malicious lies. Please do something. The source of the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard where you can find all the required links : == Request for ban of user {{Userlinks|Piriczki}} == The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I have requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You. Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Lord NnNn (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Lord NnNn (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got email :)

Hey there! Sorry for writing in English. I just sent you an email about your participation in the Training Modules pilot testing. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay...so editing wikipedia *has* gotten a lot easier since I was last active....

[[2]] Over a thousand edits...all of them for the same purpose. This has gotta be a bot.

BTW: Is this kosher? I can't think of anything wrong with it off the top of my head but it does seem a bit odd...--*Kat* (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:AWB, they are using a tool that allows users to make mass corrections to grammar or syntax, etc. You can see when users are using most automated tools in their edit summaries, for example if you look at some of their recent talk page edits you can see that they were using WP:TWINKLE, which you can activate for yourself from your preferences. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-block request

Hi Beeblebrox,

Last year, Hassan Rebell was blocked by JzG per WP:NOTHERE because of his politically motivated hateful edits targeting a minority ethnic group. You gave a last chance him by reducing his block last year. However, he continues exactly (even worse) the same behaviour when logged out to escape an another block. Vanjagenije has suggested me to contact with you for re-block, since you are the one who reduced his block 1. For more detailed info and explanations, please take a look at this. Bests, 46.221.212.92 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged at least once in each of the three previous attempts to get this user blocked, I was already well aware of this. The thing is, going around to individual admins with what appears to be a fairly complicated and involved explanation of why someone should be blocked is usually not a good approach. I reviewed an unblock request over a year ago, that does not obligate me to be permanently connected to this case, which frankly I don't remember at all. I imagine it's getting a little old to keep getting told to ask somewhere else, but I really think a complicated request like this belongs at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems complicated but if one reads it thoroughly, he/she will see that it is not that complicated. The problem is simple: An user who was once blocked per NOTHERE, continues exactly the same behaviour when logged out via dynamic IPS and proxies (not to be blocked again). Is it allowed or not? Is there a WP policy for such situations? If not, i prefer to discuss it on village pump by offering a new proposal, since the main problem is lacking of proper policy for such cases. 46.221.173.103 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that would not be allowed and would be grounds for blocking of the IPs and the account. While the problem may be simple, sifting through the evidence and making a determination on whether it is all the same user is not. I would again suggest WP:ANI or possibly WP:SPI since you are alleging the user is using multiple identities. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I already submitted a SPI on 9 January and provided dozens of evidences. Despite the checkuser also agreed that the IPS belong to Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc, he did not re-blocked him 1. 46.221.168.163 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I took a quick look here and this is what I see:

• I think you are mistaken that anyone acting as a checkuser publicly confirmed any IPs as being used by a named account. Checkuesrs don't do that, ever, and the account is too stale for a reliable check anyway. They might agree based on behavioral evidence but CU data is considered confidential.
• As you were told at that SPI, blocking IPs that are not actively disrupting the project is not done.
• As this user apparently uses a wide variety of IPs, blocking them one by one wouldn't work anyway.
• The Hassan Rebell account hasn't edited in over a year, so blocking it won't do anything either regardless of whether these IP edits are them or not.
• I should think that after you've asked in five different places for a block and been told no again and again that you might start to get the idea that blocking probably isn't the right solution here.
• All that being the case, if you can show persistent disruption to specific articles by these IPs, you can request protection for them instead of asking admins to block IPs that made one edit a few months ago. I suggest you focus your efforts in that direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. His account is stale but he is active. And no, blocking this vandal would be a very good solution, since it will stopped or altered the ip disruption. Being ip sock of a banned editor is not the same with unblocked one, you know it. And for blocking one account for sockpuppetry or disruptive edits, the CU is not necessary, there is a WP: DUCK policy for such cases. And you are right, since he uses plenty of ip ranges, range block will not help. And again, this guy was banned per NOTHERE but continues exactly the same behaviour via IPS. If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times. But no one can do anything now. Is it fair? No. The main problem is WP policies regarding ips. WP policies fail in dealing with such professional vandals. I will take it to village pump when have a time and will propose new policies regarding ips and logged-out editings. Thank you for your quick feedbacks. Cheers, 46.221.168.163 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)