User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Conversation involving you on my Wikisource user page

@Beeblebrox and Kudpung: please see my user talk page at Wikisource:

There's an ongoing discussion related to an old user block you were both involved in. I had nothing to do with the block, but mentioned it on an AFD discussion, and the blocked user is now looking for answers. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have answered this on Wikisource because that was the first ping I saw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblocking

I agree that it is disappointing that you seem unable or unwilling to address the actual reasons for the block, but it is already under discussion at ANI and your talk page, so we don't need a third discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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 wish to appeal my block, but can't figure out from the guidance where one files an appeal. – Sca (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Where can I see the decision in this case? -- Sca (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
In the ANI thread you have already been participating in. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


Beeblebrox: On my talk, I wrote and attempted to post (file) an appeal, but somehow it doesn't look right. Could you please take a look at it and see if I made some formatting mistake? Thanks. – Sca (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Very disappointing. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2022 (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.

Reply

this is not how block appeals work. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

On 10/26, you said:

I know Wikipedia is different things to different people, but you are only blocked from one single page, a page you have been blocked from before, for essentially the same reason: using it as a forum for your attempts at humor. This unblock request gives me no confidence that the intended message has been received. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, it's been received all right – like a haymaker punch to the solar plexus. Here's what I said (by email) to another old Wikipedian:
"This week I had a major setback when I was blocked from ITN due to a simple misunderstanding. I was distraught. I won't bore you with the details, but it was all over one word. My appeal was rejected."
I don't know what more I could have said to persuade you, and others, that my contrition is sincere and that I have learned my lesson. I would never attempt humor at ITN again. NEVER! Nor would I EVER post anything that might be misconstrued as 'racist.'
This seems to me an impossible state of affairs, sort of a Catch-22. I feel trapped and helpless. Please listen to me. I am a caring and responsible person with many years of professional experience in writing and editing. ITN was the one area of Wikipedia where I felt I could make a significant contribution – not only to Wiki, but also to the reading public. It was an important part of my life (in retirement). Help! – Sca (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's how I explained the situation to my sister:
It was all over one word -- during an internal discussion about a 'blurb' (short statement about an event) to be posted in Wiki's "In the News" (ITN) box.
There had been a protracted argument among various Wikipedians about what verb to use in saying that Xi Jinping had been granted a third term as China's leader. Normally one would say he was "elected," but since the party congress at which this occurred was planned long in advance, and since Xi is basically dictator of China, there were some (including me) who felt "elected" wasn't appropriate.
I jokingly suggested we say "erected" instead of "elected." That spawned a dispute with a Wiki administrator in which I was accused of making a "racist" comment, which of course was the furthest thing from my mind. A complex disciplinary process ensued, I was blocked from ITN, and my appeals were summarily rejected.
My sister's reply:
Didn’t sound racist, maybe poor choice of word. But humorous in a way.
Oh yes, a very poor choice of word! And one I very much regret -- Sca (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Raising awareness

Hello Beeblebrox, whilst reading the essay you created, I was wondering why the mixed use of it is not and it is'nt. Just being curious. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

New page creation

Hello. Previously when I have created articles I believe they have gone directly into project space. I recently created an article (yes, it's short and needs work, but is certainly article worthy) but it is now awaiting some kind of review process, that says it could take up to 3 months. Did I lose some kind of article creation right or did something change? I've created something like 8 other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't lose any user rights, but it looks like you used the article creation wizard, and with this edit [1] you submitted it to the articles for creation process. The last article you created, [2] was created directly in article space. Some users actually prefer the AFC process as a sort of pre-review of their work, but someone with your level of experience is by no means required to use it, you can simply move it to article space yourself at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah ha - thank you for that clarification and explanation. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hey Beeblebrox. How are things down south? Still digging out of the snow? We got about 5 feet at my house, and I still have several more roofs to shovel. All the roads are still down to half the number of lanes they used to have. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here. I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and may the coming New Year bring happiness and joy. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Sorry, I missed this in all the holiday clutter... We barely have any snow in town here, but there's plenty at higher elevations. We're on the winter roller coaster, with repeated freezes and thaws building ice everywhere. (crosses fingers) I have yet to fall on my ass this season. so I guess I'm doing pretty good. Thanks for the message, hope you're doing well! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh yuck. That's what we had here last winter. I'd much rather have the snow. It'd just be nice to see maybe a road grader or two out there doing something about it. You gotta love the way the government works. They base this year's funding on what they spent last year, so now there's no money to clean it all up. If it snows again we'll be in big trouble. I'm doing well. It's been an extremely busy year because everyone seems to be short on employees, but there's no shortage of overtime. Glad your doing fair to midland. Cheers. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I use a quote from you?

Hey Beeblebrox. I was reading through the responses to the RFCN you responded to and maybe a little goofy and clunky, but I don't see a policy violation stuck out to me as quite charming and rogueish plus a little self deprecating if used by myself. I was hoping to add a bit somewhere on my user page along the lines of 'this user has been described as' and then the quote. In the interest of making sure it's not seen as backhanded or dickish I wanted to ask you if you were ok with that first. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, I was describing your username, not you as a person, but I'm fine with you using it if you like. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsalt request - Northernlion

Hello Beeblebrox. I wish to inquire if you may please unsalt the Northernlion page. I know this article was salted over 6 years ago, but since then, multiple sources have emerged that prove his notability, so much so that this page was recently accepted to mainspace via AfC under Northernlion (gamer). The disambiguation is unnecessary, so I wanted to move it to Northernlion. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable enough request, I went ahead and just moved it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much! :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My talk page

ASKED AND ANSWERED
I feel like I have more than adequately explained my actions and provided guidance on best practices in this situation,I don't see any point to continuing this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Why did you clear a portion of my talk page? Did you get a complaint? Because everything I wrote can be backed up and I can provide diffs. Michael60634 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe my edit summary explains it pretty clearly. [3] Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so with your content removal, now it looks like those editors are not welcome in my talk page for no reason. But there is a reason. Again, if you want the diffs, I'll provide them. And I'll possibly be making a report against one of those editors for personal attacks or casting aspersions. Michael60634 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to present whatever evidence you have at the appropriate venue if you want an actual sanction, I don't need it posted to my talk page because it will not change the policy I cited when making that edit. Per WP:NOBAN, you can ask that specific users not edit your talk page, and generally they should respect that, but I have to question why you feel it is necessary to maintain a list of users you are asking this of (along with some of their previous usernames for some reason). Most users will simply ask the user directly to not edit their talk page and leave it at that as opposed to posting a permanent notice at the top of their page. I don't see any reason to publicly maintain such a list at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned those editors specifically as two of them have made false claims about me or my character, one of them was name-calling, and another because they have a tendency to characterize my edits as "POV pushing" even when this is false. I simply don't want to interact with them in the future on my talk page. Michael60634 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2023 (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.

New look

Hi. I caught your discussion at the 'other place' on the new look. Two questions, grateful for help. (1) How do I easily log in - the usual method is not available any more, (2) how do revert to the old look? My objections are the same as others: too much white space. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was already logged in when the change happened, so I'm not sure on that point, but I saw a link in the left sidebar to convert back to the old look. There's more information at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured out how to log in (there is something on the top right) I will look at Vector 2022. Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war?

I don't think anybody was getting mad on the userpage for that (alleged) George Santos account, just a bunch of people trying to refine the wording on the courtesy-blanking template (and one person vandalizing it). I guess I am not complaining, since my version is the one that got protected :^) but I don't mind if someone comes up with a better phrasing for the template. jp×g 00:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might just not be necessary to add a bunch of trivial diffs to the history... we are creating a lot more work for tabloid journalists trying to write stories about this! I guess it is probably fine either way. jp×g 00:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There may have been a bit of IAR in that decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Mustard27

Hi Beeblebrox, I wanted to let you know I unblocked this user just a bit ago. They were blocked solely for an offensive name, and have since changed to an appropriate username. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Give me extended confirmed

NOPE
The fact that you still want to argue that there was nothing wrong with the blatant gaming of this right tells us all we need to know. I'm also unsure what part of "go away" was ambiguous. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

You are an important person, I respect your authority and cower in fear from it. Tell me explicitly what do I need to do to get extended confirmed, I will do it. Uni3993 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This trolling doesn't really deserve a reply other than "go away". So go away. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are you not telling me explicitly what do I need to do to get extended confirmed, I will do it. Uni3993 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Step one would be to dial back the snark. I'm always amazed that people ask for help in a snarky tone, and then complain their request is ignored. Surely that doesn't work for you in the real world? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok I promise to dial back the snark. What else do I need to do. Also I'm not asking for help I'm making an official request. Uni3993 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Uni3993: Try doing it the old-fashioned way; make 500 (or even 250) edits without making meaningless edits just to inflate your edit count. Preferably by writing encyclopaedia articles. You'll find that much more enjoyable, I hope, than arguing over technicalities. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Have you not seen my edit history? I have made more than 500 meaningful edits since my Extended Confirmed was removed (Removed for only welcoming users, which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the official Wikipedia documentation that didn't count, so it was very arbitrary for it to be removed in the first place). Uni3993 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
You have my suggestion. If you made even 250 edits, in fact if you made a few dozen meaningful edits that improved the encyclopaedia, I'd happily restore your extended confirmed status myself. When we, as administrators, see see someone appearing to do an end-run around the process, it concerns us because many people who do that have nefarious intent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: So let me get this straight, you have checked my most recent current edit history and you didn't see a SINGLE edit that improved the encyclopaedia? Uni3993 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (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.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question

traviswilson112792 : date of birth .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

If you had a point I'm still not seeing it. The help desk is place for people to ask for help. I don't see how your comment helped anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice (on behalf of Uni3993)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Userify

Hi Beeblebrox, would you be willing to move List of duo and trio cocktails to my userpage? I will try to re-write it with proper sourcing. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done page is at User:Ɱ/List of duo and trio cocktails. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlotte Checkers logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlotte Checkers logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cross posted to User talk:Bevertus, as they re-uploaded a new version, overwriting the one I uploaded. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you have a look?

Need I say more? I suspect the IP ranges might be open proxies, but I don't know how to check. Thanks! — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Dmorale29

I'm guessing the UTRS request that came after TPA was revoked was, erm, fun to read? I'm not sure what led to this, but it must have been a doozy. --Jayron32 19:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't UTRS that we took action on, but yes, what we saw was unpleasant. Izno (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

What a jerk

Sorry you had to deal with this. If I was online and had seen it I would have blocked it as a PA. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually find it funny at this point. Even more hilariously, I've been dealing with something similar, though not as prolonged, in my real life. A little group at my job decided to form a little cabal with the goal of basically controlling the facility the way they wanted. There was no need for it, nobody was trying to compete with them, we are supposed to be a team working together, but somehow they decided we were in some sort of conflict, and so they began specializing in badmouthing their coworkers to management, trying to get them removed from certain areas, so that their group would seem like they were critically important. It has backfired spectacularly, two of the four of them have been fired over their anger issues and basically not really helping in any real way, and the other two have been revealed as basically incompetent and not really working towards the same goals as everybody else, end yet they still behave as though everyone owes them something and they aren't the cause of their own fall from grace. I hadn't really thought it through until now but the resemblance is uncanny, a massive self-own that was totally preventable if they just stopped assuming the worst about everyone and worked as a part of the overall team, not an artificial, toxic subgroup that is comfortable using whatever means necessary to damage the reputation of their co-workers. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Funny, you could be describing exact experiences I've had. Even here, we see that—it's astonishing how often people run to ANI and end up getting themself in trouble. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Two things I have learned in life and on Wikipedia — whatever standard you hold others to, hold yourself to one higher; and if you're going to try to somehow enforce a standard, make sure you have the other person dead to rights. Generally, people are remarkably bad at both. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not super helpful when admins themselves are throwing out the term "deletionist" such as "What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way by sanctioning anyone who disagrees with them", at ANI no less. I mean, we should lead by example.-- Ponyobons mots 20:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Lightweight RfA processes

If you want to see a truly lightweight process, have a look at mine. And prior to that, the process was simply announcement one day on the EN-Wikipedia list by Jimmy Wales that if anyone wanted to be one, simply email him & he'd approve them. (I'm sure it wasn't a blanket approval, but unless one was a known troll or troublemaker, he rubber-stamped the request.) I doubt any from that tranche is still active; if any maybe Anthere. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a few from that period before. I suppose it was fairly inevitable that as the community grew, who could block and delete things would need to be a little more restrictive. I don't think I had even heard of Wikipedia in 2003. If memory serves, the computer I had then was a "pizza box" Mac that my aunt gave because the company she worked for was going to throw them in the trash. Internet in Alaska was really slow back then, only dial up was available and we're a long way from just about everything.... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fever dreams

Please let me know if I went over the top or violated decorum here. I'd be the last to know Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is good; let's have a new one each day

Category talk:Lists of airline destinations#Discussion on retaining articles in this category conveniently documents the changes. isaacl (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That consensus is slippery one. One day it is "Wikipedia's primary decision making model" the next, it's not good enough because .... reasons? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Some editors seem to remember a halcyon time when the grass was greener, the air was fresher, and editors roamed Wikipedia freely, fixing all article problems and keeping them all up-to-date... I do appreciate the view of someone like the technology historian Jason Scott, who decries gatekeeping that inhibits the creation of content and has criticized Wikipedia in the past. But he ended up working at the Internet Archive, and it's much better suited to be the historical archive of everything than Wikipedia is. Some content isn't a great fit for volunteers to maintain, and the effort to create a bot might be better spent using the bot to transfer that info to an archive specially designed for mirroring or storing historical content. I also get the view that something is better than nothing; however I don't agree that something that I'm volunteering someone else to do is always better than nothing.
On Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions: the lack of finality to any decision and the strong dependency of the outcome on whoever shows up to a discussion makes it hard to carry through any initiative. You have to keep getting people to show up to agree with a decision, over and over again. So if all those people who agreed that maintaining lists of Xs and Ys is too difficult for too little benefit don't show up to deletion (or deletion review) discussions, there's a stalemate. isaacl (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why The UTRS is so slow?

I live in Mainland China and I followed WP:IPBE accordingly after my previous IP block exemption expired. But emails to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org can't be sent successfully, and then I tried UTRS in September 2022 with no immediate response, forcing me to quit Wikipedia, coming back now and see myself granted IPBE in January. Since each request only gives one year of the right, I found the 4-month delay intolerable, so I like to know how UTRS works: does it really have a 4-month backlog?.

On an unrelated issue I found so many wikipedians criticize the ArbCom, even if ArbCom is an elected body, and even after fresh ArbCom elections, can you offer insight on the situation? ibicdlcod (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Legacy admin

I find the term degrading and insulting. As you say, it is used to lump together and disparage any and all admins from before (fill in date here). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is ok to use in the abstract to describe the real issue of out-of-touch admins who got the bits when it was ridiculously easy to do so, but it is something else to use it to refer to individuals, or to all admins from a certain period. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Legacy admins

Regarding your comment on the term "legacy admins": at first I was going to say "without checking, I recall it being used in past discussions on Wikipedia", but hey, why not check. A few examples: it was used in the opening statement of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, and thus subsequently by various commenters. I also see it used within Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021), including by the editor who started the RfC. You used it (among others) in discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues. I don't think there's any problem with having one or more terms to refer to earlier cohorts of administrators. I do agree such terms shouldn't be used as a shorthand to assume all of the admins included within this group act the same way, or even that the majority act in a certain undesirable way. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is completely unfair to use it in any context, as I said at the case request, it is a real thing. However, it probably shouldn't be used in ArbCom proceedings, for the reasons I mentioned there but also because it does not have a clear and specific meaning. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have the opposite view of what you expressed in another section: I don't think it should be used to refer to the issue of problematic admins. "Legacy" refers to something carried over or inherited from a previous time. It's not inherently good or bad; it just has its origins in an earlier period. It does have a straightforward literal meaning, and I'd as soon the community not develop an internal pejorative connotation for it. We have enough confusing jargon already. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Legacy" vs. "lagacy"

In your latest comment in the AlisonW case request, you referred to "lagacy" admins (with an "a") in your first sentence, which I assume is a typo. Unless it was a deliberate reference, you might want to correct it before it gets picked up and used for "legacy" admins who "lag" behind current standards. (Because I don't read WPO, I actually don't know if it's already been used there and that is what you were referencing.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's almost kind of funny, but no, that was a typo, and I've fixed it, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
NP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Help me

Hello, some time ago I was led to believe that asking other editors directly for their support in a consensus issue was frowned upon. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on why you're asking them and how you're asking them. If you know someone will vote a certain way, that can be considered canvassing. If, however, you are simply notifying someone because they are part of an associated WikiProject, or have edited the page/area before, and you ask them neutrally, it is not considered canvassing. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please judge for yourself when you have the time. Shearonink clearly knows he is soliciting, denying it, while he continues. Reading on, it becomes more and more evident that she will not only take his side, but take over from him, continually nit-picking wherever I am and whatever I am doing. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@PorkyPowerPeanut: You could try starting an RFC. The talk page discussion has started but with so few participants it's not easy to discern a consensus yet. Did one editor solicit help from another? Yes, it looks like it, but I hardly think it's a situation that rises to the level of needing discipline from an admin. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on User Block

Hi Beeblebrox,

I wanted to seek your assistance on a user's actions, noting that you have previously blocked this user and issued a final warring in the unblock request, hence why I am seeking you.

I recently posted a warning on a third editor's talk page requesting the editor to stop making personal attacks on various other editors. This user reverted the message twice [31], [32], falsely claiming the message was illegitimate, and minimizing the editors actions, while quoting WP:DTTR, when I didn't actually use a template. Given that I'd had to revert the user twice [4], [5] and warned the user against disruptions of WP:DR attempts in the edit summaries, I posted a warning to the user page. Only then did the user stop reverting my warning. The editor being warned was later blocked after ignoring the warning, in part due to the personal attacks which I warned him for.

More recently, the user showed up at a WP:AN3 discussion relating to me. The user doubled-down on the previous accusations made relating to WP:DTTR [6][7]. The user further casted aspersions [8], accusing me of having "a history of edit warring" and "dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite, despite not having any interaction me beyond the above-mentioned incident. Additionally, the user criticized an admin, saying "I personally don't think the block was warranted to begin with, nor do I agree with the rationale given for the block, especially considering he wasn't given the chance to respond to the ANEW report", which seems to be WP:IDHT, when the user has been blocked for the violation.

As I pointed out at WP:AN3, WP:DTTR is a essay, not WP:PAG. A user's right to contact or warn another user is not diminished simply because the user has been on WP longer then the other. I find the users actions to be a clear disruption of WP:DR process. I believe that this attitude of simply reverting/blocking a less senior user's attempts at conflict resolution to be extremely disruptive. I further note that this both times I have interacted with this user, this user has inserted himself into good-faith attempts at WP:DR, and disrupted the attempts, without being initially involved.

Please let me know what you think and if further action is warranted. Thank you for your assistance. Carter00000 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I hate to seem dismissive of your concerns, but I blocked that user thirteen years ago and I really don't recall the whole affair with any specificty. This all sounds rather involved and I am also on the WP:ARBCOM, which has two cases coming to a resolution at basically the same time right now, so that's taking up most of my WP time. (although at a glance I do agree that "don't template the regulars" is just an opinion and not in any way a policy or even a best practice) I note the user has been blocked more recently by @331dot: and @NinjaRobotPirate:, perhaps they have some fresher insight to provide? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your prompt response, especially as you are currently busy with two ARBCOM cases. I myself follow ARBCOM cases out of personal interest, and to get a better idea of WP policy, so I understand just how much work they are on a Arbiter.
I also understand when you say that some time has passed since you made the block. I will follow-up with the two admins you have suggested to see if they have any comment. Carter00000 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblerox. Please note that there is already a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Carter00000 reported by User:GWA88 (Result: ), where everything that the OP has said here was already said there in some form or another. And this, in my opinion, appears to be some form of canvassing. My block log, in this particular case, is irrelevant, so I have no idea why they're bringing it up. There is no pattern of whatever here. I only reverted the OP twice on IJBall's talk page, which IJBall himself later reverted the next attempt. The inappropriate warning left on my talk page that I reverted doesn't count, as per WP:BLANKING. Additionally, the reason given in IJBall's block log was edit warring and incivility, so I don't know why the user keeps claiming personal attacks, as incivility and personal attacks are not necessarily the same thing. Speaking generally here, neither should happen, but they are not strictly the same thing. Unlike the OP, though, I am not looking for any of kind action to be taken against them by coming here and posting this and am simply replying. I am also not interested in discussing this in three or four different places and will stick to making any further comments at ANEW, so this will be my one and only comment here on this particular subject. Amaury • 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

I no longer want rollback permissions, i can just use twinkle or redwarn, please remove my roll permissions, thanks Notrealname1234 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Personally, I don't like to use it either, I think Twinkle's rollback function is much more user friendly. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

TruxtVerified

Hello, why you are changed me from Pending rewiewer. TruxtVerified (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I’m not sure if you saw the logs, but they removed you because they noticed you had been blocked for editing warring recently. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 04:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't notice until just after granting it, so I do apologize for that, but I did explain it at [9]. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I see they already applied and were rejected again, without mentioning any of this. That was not wise, you basically have no chance at this point for at least three months. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It doesn’t appear that they applied for pending changes reviewer again, but they did apply for rollback and new page reviewer. Both were declined, obviously. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
ok TruxtVerified (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I just noticed that as well, I need coffee, apparently. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer and new page reviewer can be confusing sometimes, especially when they’re both called reviewer. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The next time you do perm requests, you might want to try WP:URM. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A coffee for you!

Thanks for all your hard work, especially reviewing a lot of the permissions requests recently. You said you need coffee, so here you are! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, I need a coffee. I had reverted so many spam edits.😴 TruxtVerified (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled for creator of unfinished articles?

Hi Beeblebrox, I saw you gave Adamtt9 autopatrolled rights in 2016. They tend to create unfinished articles like this a month ago or this yesterday and release them into main space. Both are only examples which they repeated several times both times. I have opened a discussion about it on their talk page but no answer. Maybe you could have a word with them. Also the sources they use for their tournament articles are rather often not independent of the subject such as this one. They are one of the top article creators. I'd suggest they either get Autopatrolled removed or at least put on a trial of Autopatrolled for a month.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

They have also released unfinished articles in the months before you gave them autopatrolled rights. Their finished article today has no inline citations and the sources are also not independent to the subject. The two only sources they have provided at the time and until now here and here.
The 2016 Tashkent Challenger – Doubles is another one that has no incline citations nor sources independent to the subject, the 2016 Columbus Challenger 2 – Doubles as well etc.
Articles like 2016 Astana Challenger Capital Cup where the only source is the current ATP ranking are at least questionable. Of course at a time that seems ok, but the source will be outdated quite soon. And they have many articles similar to them. Actually I believe almost all on tournaments I reviewed so far.
In 2017 they created 2017 Santaizi ATP Challenger with the ATP ranking as a source, 2017 Tallahassee Tennis Challenger – Singles+ has no independent sourcing as well.Then I couldn't find the winner Blaž Rola per ctrl+f in the source provided.
In 2018 2018 Tunis Open – Singles, Released like this, same, no inline citation, a general source not independent from the subject.
then the 2018 Ningbo Challenger – Singles, released like this no inline citations but a general source not independent of the subject.
In 2019 the 2019 International Challenger Zhangjiagang was released like this and the current ATP ranking is the only source.
The 2019 Casino Admiral Trophy – Singles was released like this, with today no inline citations or source independent from the subject
I believe I can go on year through year, but I'll stop for now and hope you'll find a solution for the benefit of wikipedia.
From my point of view we can expect the community to update some articles in such a state within a bunch of starts, but not from within over 5000 stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the idea that if an admin grants someone a user right, they are then responsible for all of their subsequent actions for all eternity. I suggest you open a discusison at an appropriate noticeboard, I don't keep tabs on all of the hundreds of users that I have granted user rights to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_48&oldid=1187291219"