User talk:Beeblebrox

Welcome to my talk page

I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.

I am an oversighter, but it is generally inadvisable to discuss oversight matters on-wiki. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion, but you can email me if you prefer.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

please stay in the top three tiers

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For the exceedingly helpful essay The unblockables. Pitke (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

"Nonsense"

I put that in quotations because it just appears that way due to them not understanding the English language, but this user keeps editing their talk page (after being blocked by another admin) with what appears to be just a bunch of nonsense. Might need to have their talk page privileges revoked. Regards. :) - Amaury (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like another admin got there already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Was just coming to post that, haha! - Amaury (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-blocking request

SD0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

You do appear to meet my criteria. Before doing this I like to ask the user to take 24 hours to carefully consider if they really want/need to do this, and to inform them of the wikibreak enforcer [1] which accomplishes essentially the same thing without adding anything to your block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that I want to be blocked for two years. Also full-protect my user page. I hope you will leave a block summary like "per user request" or "self-requested block" or something similar. Would like to ask one thing though: since you're not a CheckUser, how will come to know if I use a sock account or IP for editing? Regards, SD0001 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if I was a checkuser, I doubt it would be considered appropriate to check if someone was evading a block they requested themselves. There isn't actually any policy here, those are just my personal terms. If that's ok with you I'll go ahead and block you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Rollback

I see you grant Rollback, any chance I can have it, thanks. --Mark Winterbottom (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) As this was your second edit and you have a total of four, I believe I can speak for Beeblebrox and say not a chance. Try again when you have roughly 400-500 undeleted edits. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody asked you, I asked the administrator, get back in your cage and keep your mouth closed. --Mark Winterbottom (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Winterbottom: Fine, disregard me. I'm just trying to spare Beeblebrox's time. We generally don't give user rights until you've proven yourself capable of editing properly with an established track record. Also, please redact the personal attack in your comment. Finally, perhaps you should slow your rollback and admin ambitions down until you have more than 11 edits, of which eight are in the user and user talk namespaces. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"We" don't give user rights? "You" are not an admin or have you forgotten, I am asking Beeblebrox. He will decide whether his time needs to be spared or not, so this time, please (kindly) remove yourself from this conversation and go hunting for vandalism, there's a good chap.

Grossly unqualified + incredibly rude = I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox, how's it going mate? So, I am civil now as you can see, so, what you say? Rollback? Mark Winterbottom (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

YGM

... on the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Two questions

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

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

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

You've got a mail

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email – you've got mail!
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.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

H, got your mail, and I'm always willing to discuss any serious proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thorn-Stingley House

Speaking of the recent slew of NRHP-related permastubs, this one was created not too long ago and is marked with an {{Image requested}} tag on its talk page, if you're in a position to rectify that. I don't specifically recall this place, but Google Maps gives me the impression that it anchors a city park. If that's the case, mention of that is missing from the article, too. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've actually known about it for a while, but I wasn't aware it had an article now. I've never taken a picture because it's just somebody's house and there's always cars parked out front, kid's toys, etc. It's not in any park that I am aware of, although it is near a nature trail. I'll keep an eye on it. The funny thing to me is that there are more known and notable old buildings in Homer, like the Salty Dawg or the Bunnell Street Art Center, that for whatever reason aren't NRHP sites. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A user making disruptive edits with socks.

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

I'm not at all sure why you chose to bring this to me specifically but I would note the following:

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

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:8semka/sandbox

Hi,

About your decline on the speedy deletion of User talk:8semka/sandbox, I want to point out that this is not a draft of an article. It is a fake version of America's Next Top Model. This is typical of people using Wikipedia for online versions of popular realioty TV shows. This version purports to be cycle 9, and is taking place now with a premier that took place on March 6, 2015. In reality, America's Next Top Model (cycle 9) was from way back in 2007 and does not have this cast of models. America's Next Top Model (cycle 21) is the last aired cycle, and cycle 22 has yet to air. Please reconsider as this is obviously fake. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have known better as I have deleted lots of these type of pages in the past. I hadn't seen one in a long while andI guess I failed to consider that it was a fake, I'll zap it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of User:20creator15/sandbox

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

Ah, that wasn't really clear in the nom, deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I've been here for almost ten years

And never seen quite that. I guess it's why I usually avoid the drama boards. Thanks again for jumping on it. I'll go out on a limb and predict talk page privileges will need to be revoked at some point today. BusterD (talk)

Too late. Best. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone starts talking about demands and yelling in all caps it's a pretty sure sign that they are the problem and not the other way around. Hopefully he will calm down and can return when the block is over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why we pay you the big bucks... BusterD (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you're the Palmolive of admins, cutting through dirt and grease in no time at all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you are apparently blockhappy, could fire one up in this direction per this harassment and this personal attack? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And since you're so quick to yank talk page privileges, could you deal with Al Qaeda Jr. over here? BusterD (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Querying an old block

You had blocked an editor in December 2013,[2] and you had logged this entry here, after the update from 20 January 2015, the entry can be read from here. However, I have doubts whether the block was made under an arbitration enforcement or it was just a normal block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you are not rying to call me a liar even though it sure sounds like it. I guess I have questions of my own in that case:

• What are these doubts of yours based on?
• Are you aware that there does not have to be a formal discussion at WP:AE for an uninvolved admin to issue an Arbitration enforcement block?
• Have you noted that the user was previously blocked as an arbitration enforcement action for edit warring in this same area?
• Is there some reason this even matters since that user has not edited in about 16 months?

Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I just moved a few latest entries from older logs[3] today, because they had to be logged at 2015. I just saw this one entry and recalled this block, it didn't really included any link to ARE whether in blocking template or blocking summary, it looked like a normal block. But since you have said that it was an ARE block, case is solved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

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

laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

)

You've been talking with Reguyla. I've blocked the IP for 12 hours (likely for all the good it will do). Nick (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Since you are sure that it is a block evader, would you be increasing the block length? Don't forget to increase the block length of the main account, or let us just bring it to WP:ANI for violating the standard offer, this was third time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone I'm not increasing the block length on any account. Reguyla has been fucked over by the community and should really have been unblocked a couple of months ago. I'm stepping in to stop this trouble here and doing nothing else to keep a perfectly good content editor off the project. You should be utterly ashamed at your behaviour in all of this, OccultZone. Nick (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have known, but I guess I thought he was actually trying to get unbanned and was holding to his umpteenth promise to stop socking and trolling. Speaking as someone who was on arbcom during the period when the entire committee was subject to extreme harrassment from him I can't say I share your opinion of him. He once was a very productive editor, but he turned from that path and very deliberately became a troll and a long-term abuser. Nevertheless, thanks for stepping in and blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I do have a question. Suppose if one has removed the comments of a editor like Kumioko, is it allowed for anyone to restore them again? I know that restoring content to main article is allowed, but I have never seen that restoring talk page comments is allowed at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a definitive answer for that. Any user is free to remove comments from block/ban evaders, but a lot of pointless edit warring has been spawned by such situations. I certainly don't care if anyone removes his comments but if they are put back I wouldn't bother with it. The less attention he gets the better as causing disruption is and has been his stated goal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much answers everything. Thanks. Striking may be a better idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Also consider checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kumioko_ban_proposal OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Think this IP is Mark Winterbottom?

103.6.156.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tried to get his user page deleted. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That is odd, but I don't think it is enough in and of itself to say it's the same person evading a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation?

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

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

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

WP:PERM/RV

Hi Beeblebrox, thankyou for commenting on my request in WP:PERM/RV.. I'm happy that you atleast gave me a good reason.. When shall I comeback again? Jut to avoid more, can you point out some of the mistakes I made using the rollback tool, the mistakes I should avoid? Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 03:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would just counsel you to take it slow, and make sure you have a good reason every time you use rollback, and that you explain yourself clearly. Once you've been doing that for amonth or two without trouble I think you could easily qualify for the reviewer tool as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?

Hi. Could you have a look at User:Gabriel Andrijausco/sandbox? It looks suspiciously like the material that used to be housed at User talk:8semka/sandbox, but as I am not an admin, I cannot view it. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It was word-for-word. Looks like 8semka was actually the sock and they went back to the other one after the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking into this. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistake?

[4] - Looks like you forgot to click disable talk page access. Tiptoety ^talk 02:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I actually have been looking forward to this day for a long time! The autopatrolled right is important to me and I will certainly continue to create good content. Thank you and the very best of regards!

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hello bee,

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

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

It looks like all the stuff in the investigation may have been recently deleted, but was actually created a year ago. Not surprising as copyright investigations tend to be understaffed. Nevertheless, I'll take another look. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, I'm not seeing any actual copyvios created in the first four months of this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You never missed anything bee. Its just that you are unlikely to see anything in the last few months because all the articles created by this user in the last few months are stubs and there are nothing much in the stubs they created ( one or two sentences articles). Personally I really don't feel that contents like this are enough to grant this tool but I had even seen an admin who recently granted the tool (in violation of WP:AUTOPAT ) to a user who only created disambiguation pages. Nevertheless, we may need to keep our eyes open. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Court judges

Hi bee

I can't find the WP:NG for judges, I mean court judges either judges at the supreme or high court. Do you think that judges of high court or its equivalents are notable? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt, WP:N is the standard. That being said, if we're talking about a high or supreme court for an entire sovereign nation I would imagine all the judges would be considered notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed on personal attack

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

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

User(s) blocked. If this was the only instance since being warned yesterday I might have gone with a "final warning" but even a quick glance shows other unaccaptable comments, taunting, and battleground behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And, as if that weren't enough, it turns out that both Scaravich and this Drjamesphillips account who commented here are socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I considered posting a reply here and pointing out that the claims by Drjamesphillips were untrue. But with the block I figured no need. Anyway, it is all taken care of I see. Thanks. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)