User talk:Beeblebrox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 20:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

please stay in the top three tiers

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Sorry for causing confusion! My wording "official" in the UAA request was suboptimal. Thank you for taking the time to deal with this. Seems to be a happy ending. Have a nice morning and a good start into the day. Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Matt14451[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I feel like this has moved beyond the original subject, and since there apparently is an ANI discussion as well this needn’t go on any longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Recently, you granted this user the pending changes reviewer right for a month's trial (on 14 October 2018, see here). One criterion for being given the right is You have read our policy on vandalism and understand what is vandalism and what is not. However, earlier today Matt posted this warning for vandalism on User talk:AlexTheWhovian for this edit, that is clearly not vandalism. Other than the warning being completely uncivil to say the least, it also shows in my opinion that they have an very unsatisfactory understanding of vandalism to have the pending changes reviewer right, so I'm bringing this to your attention. Thank you TedEdwards 16:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451:, I have to agree with the above post, and it was your previous previous poorly handled issues with this same user that made me hesitant to grant the right in the first place. Your actions botht then and now show a lack of policy understanding and possibly a personal animus toward this particular user. i’d like to hear what you plan to do to going forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC){{Beeblebrox
@TedEdwards: I have had numerous previous conversations with Alex in which he was hostile, including making personal attacks and casting aspersions but I can't find where to report those anyway. I forgot to change the warning reason from vandalism (the default) to edit-warring or similar. He reverted me reverting his bold edit so it warranted a warning.
@Beeblebrox: Thank you for alerting me to this post. Matt14451 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Matt14451:So why didn't you change it at the time or apologize at any point to him for that? You should have seen his revert summary here where he says Troll editor who has no idea what vandalism is. Go read it. Accusing an editor of vandalism is an actual personal attack, explicitly stating you gave him a warning vandalism. There was a discussion here, where it was mentioned and you didn't mention it was an accident. I also refered to the warning here, and you definitely saw that because you replied. And now you claim it was an accident? Yeah right. And where has he launched personal attacks at you? TedEdwards 19:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It was an accident, I forgot to change to reason. You can't dispute that vandalism is the default when using Twinkle and I just clicked post. I saw his edit summary but why should I explain or even apologise when he just removes it and calls me a troll? Would have done the same if it was for edit-warring/similar. Other discussions such as List of Humans episodes and The Cry. Matt14451 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
He continually ignored WP:BRD because it's not a policy. Matt14451 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but considering both me and Alex had refered to the warning, you had opportunity to explain it was an accident. Did you? No. And you can't even warn people legitimately for violating BRD, because in the first sentence it says The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus, noting the word optional. And I've not seen a single personal attack in either discussion, so what are you on about? TedEdwards 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC) And why don't you say to Beeblebrox what you plan on doing going forward? That's why you were pinged. TedEdwards 20:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Time had passed and the warning wasn't significant so I didn't remember it. In The Cry discussion he mentioned me using an IP, not relevant to the situation at hand at all. His general language and attitude is aggressive. Also see my talk page. Matt14451 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I do have to say that @AlexTheWhovian:’s behavior on your talk page is also not acceptable. Users are generally given wide latitude as to what to allow and what to remove on their own talk page, and repeatedly re-instating material that the user has removed and/or persistently starting new discussions replacing removed ones is clearly disruptive.

Frankly, it seems clear that the two of you do not get along and working around each other seems to bring out the worst in both of you. It would be best if you voluntarily agreed to a two-way interaction ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Matt14451 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Might be for the best IMO, but I'm not the one to judge. Anyway Beeblebrox, the initial topic was about what I suspected to be a lack of understanding of what vandalism is by Matt and I still do. I remain completely unconvinced that the warning was an accident, considering Matt's reply to Alex's message on his talk page that refered to the warning was posted 11 minutes after Matt posted the warning. And therefore I posted on your talk page my concerns that the pending change right is not appropiate for Matt. And Matt has not answered your question on what he plans to do going forward. TedEdwards 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It was an accident, I don't know how else to say it.
I didn't realise Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) was asking me that. There are pages on my watchlist that use pending changes, e.g. Aquaman. I have checked the backlog a few times as well. Matt14451 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
While failure to appropriately identify vandalism is something that could lead to revocation of permissions, I believe there is a different issue here with two users who seem unable to edit harmoniously with each other or have productive discussions when they do disagree. So, I’m not going to yank PC today, because when the permisssion has been used it appears to have been used appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to TedEdwards for alerting me of this discussion. Disruptive editing, the correct warning, is one right below vandalism in Twinkle; it's my belief that that particular warning was not accidental at all, especially given WP:DTTR. As for the two-way interaction ban, I do not agree to such terms that would limit my editing experience, but I'm glad that Matt14451 agrees to it, so if he wants to go ahead with it, I'm happy for him. -- AlexTW 01:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I did ping you above. And it’s not really possible to have a voluntary two-way interaction ban if only one party agrees to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Without Alex agreeing then further disagreements and breaking-of-policies by both parties is likely. I recommend we don't directly communicate in discussions and don't revert each others edits, let other editors revert if necessary. Alex is still replying to me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 08:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I never agreed to it, that's why I'm replying to you. It was a voluntary suggestion. -- AlexTW 08:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Why did you revert my UAA edit?[edit]

I think you may have been intending to say 'not a blatant violation,' but you reverted it. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Because I’m getting really, really tired of people reporting accounts with no edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this look weird?[edit]

Posting here rather than confronting the user directly since I'm a bit worried doing the latter might violate a still-in-place IBAN with a different user (which you initially put in place and of which you have been the primary enforcer), but an editor about whom I recently had some unkind words has shown up twice to ANI in the last day or so, in one instance taking the opposite side to me in a larger dispute, and in the other making a comment that essentially amounted to a call for an editor who was essentially blocked for harassing me be brought back into the community in some fashion.

I've half a mind to immediately open an AN/ANI thread to request the IBAN be altered to a one-way (so that I can freely reply when things like this happen, without worrying about the block being undone because "it was just enforcement of a ban that is no longer in place"), but I'm torn between asking for a one-way IBAN and asking for it to be replaced with a TBAN or a simple community SBAN; the problem, though, is that with the only recent incident being instigated by someone else entirely, it might just look like petty grave-dancing, while simply asking for the ban to be removed would leave the way open for an unblock on the grounds that the ban is not in place anymore.

Pinging User:David Tornheim (sorry, David, if this is all a misunderstanding / unfortunate coincidence, and you were completely unaware of the IBAN in question, but I hope you appreciate why I was unable to message you directly) and User:MjolnirPants, who is intimately familiar with all of this (he's the subject of the ANI thread David followed me to, and by coincidence knows both my history with David and the background of the IBAN in question) and is able to speak a bit more freely on several of the matters than I am.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if the above was unclear. I'm not just messaging you (Beeblebrox) as a proxy because I don't feel comfortable about talking directly to David about this matter; I'd like your advice on how to move ahead with dealing with the IBAN, which hasn't served its original preventative function for the better part of a year. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If the IBan in still in place at Hijiri's end, I strongly recommend dropping it. The best it could hope to accomplish now is preventing Hijiri from gravedancing, and I highly doubt Hijiri would do that. He can be short tempered and a little prone to overreactions at times (Sorry man, I still consider you a wikifriend, I'm just being as honest as I can be), but that's only when he's being pushed and annoyed by other editors. Without Carter here to push him, I have do doubt he will be perfectly civil about it.
I don't know much about the interactions of David and Hijiri, but if needed, I can dig up some diffs to show that David has been low-level harassing me as well (popping up in threads he sees me in to disagree with me or accuse me of shit, using logic even worse than he usually uses), since I gave him a healthy dose of attitude a few weeks back. This looks like the same thing. It doesn't really bother me, as he's not very effective at it.
That being said, Hijiri, don't sweat this. Every time I've had an extended interaction with David, I've been emailed by a half dozen editors warning me not to bother engaging him. And not the same ones every time, either. I'm fairly certain that David has convinced a large proportion of the most visible editors and admins on this site that he's never worth listening to, and at least one of the editors who's emailed me that same thing is involved in that discussion, already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox: I have no idea what Hijiri is talking about. I don't weigh in on threads at AN/I because he is there--I actually try to avoid him and what he says about me. He seems to be obsessed with me and constantly believes if I weigh in on anything where we disagree, it is because of him--I could probably dig up 10 diffs of that nature, at least one is above. It's really quite irritating, and I wish he would find better things to do with his time on Wikipedia than fantasize that my edits have anything to do with him.
The reality is that he is the #7 editor at WP:AN/I--I have 1/10th as many edits there, so if I speak to any issue, the odds are high he will have too. He is eager to get new editors who disagree with him banned; I am not. So if I weigh in, I will likely disagree. He seems to have drama with almost everyone he works with--I work collaboratively whenever possible.
I found it a bit ironic he wanted me topic banned from AN/I when he is so dominant there--I believe the real reason he wants me banned from AN/I is to eliminate the voice of an experienced editor who disagrees with him. If you look at our interaction, I'm hardly at any of the articles he is at.
As for Mpants, I have not followed him around either. I would appreciate if he stopped accusing me of that. We did work cooperatively at Argument from authority and with user Endercase. I miss those days. Recent interactions can all be traced to just two articles: List of common misconceptions and Murder of Seth Rich. We disagreed over content, and I disagreed with him on how he treated other editors at those articles: Fountains of Bryn Mawr, FrogCast, StreetSign and Obsidi. IMHO opinion he was uncivil to every one of those four editors, and I could provide diffs to prove it. That's why I weighed in at the recent AN/I post about Mpant's civility, and I agree that he needed to be warned. Hopefully, that will solve the problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I see serious problems with WP:AN/I (and other noticeboards), because we have too few neutral editors and admins there. Snow Rise described the problem perfectly here. That is a topic that I will continue to discuss. I believe that problem has much to do with the accusations against me above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging in editors with their own bad histories with me, including suggesting that rather than an IBAN being put in place to protect me that I be dragged before ArbCom, based on the claim that there aren't enough "neutral" editors, seems counterproductive, no? I have long since forgiven SR for all that shit in the past, but I think they'd be the first to agree that they're hardly a model example of a neutral editor that ANI needs more of.
As for my level of activity at ANI: that's my business, and honestly most of it was back in 2015 (when I was repeatedly dragged to ANI by a small clique of editors who wanted me site-banned but wound up getting site-banned or equivalent themselves) and 2016 (when I was highly active in contributing to threads in which I was not directly involved), and few editors have actually questioned my involvement in those threads recently, while yours is ... well, let's just say ArbCom doesn't appear to have disagreed with my assessment of the situation, but rather agreed with me that it didn't rise to the level of their needing to get involved at that time. Anyway, if you don't want to be TBANned from commenting on ANI threads in which you are not directly involved, I suggest you stop making comments that are likely to be seen as disruptive, and I suggest you stay on-topic here: this is about an IBAN which is currently hindering my activity despite having been originally put in place for the opposite reason (to allow me to contribute where I like without worrying about hounding).
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm fairly well convinced that the only serious problem with the boards like ANI is that editors like David participate in them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like I’m missing something here. The only part of this that seems relevant to the IBAN in question is the thread about John Carter. Since you have wisely not commented there all you need to do in that situation is to ignore it. It literally is not your problem. The rest of it seems an unrelated issue with a user that I don’t feel particualrly compelled to involve myself with. If I’m completely misunderstood let me know, otherwise go ahead and take it to a noticeboard as appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd rather ignore it (it seems to be shaping up the same way I would have liked it to whether I participated or not) in the short term, but in the long term I'd like to no longer be subject to a restriction that doesn't serve its original purpose of protecting me from harassment. Had I not been subject to a TBAN from Japanese culture at the time the IBAN was originally put in place, I probably would have requested he be TBANned in the first place, rather than a mutual IBAN, and that's no longer an issue. The problem is, though, that if I just request now that the ban be removed outright, he could technically be unblocked as the ban that the block is enforcing would no longer be in effect, and if I request any other restrictions I would run the risk of being accused of grave-dancing. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

‎YULdigitalpreservation[edit]

Hi Beeblebrox,

‎YULdigitalpreservation still has live accounts on other WMF wikis. Some of those communities might also decide to take action in relation to the username, and if so then they may wish to review the enwiki discussion that led to ‎YULdigitalpreservation's block here. Therefore, would you mind undoing your deletion of that discussion, and archiving it instead? Sorry for the trouble, and thanks in advance for understanding,

Zazpot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Procedure at RFCN was recently changed after a discussion Wikipedia talk:Username policy. The new procedure is to treat reports that should’ve been reported to WP:UAA as blatant violations the same as actual UAA reports, which are not archived. Each WMF site makes its own decisions anyway, our username policy is not a global policy and only applies here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I wasn't aware of those conventions. Thank you for the explanation, Zazpot (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The old-fashioned way[edit]

Had a little chuckle at your struggles with the one-click archiver. Sometimes the old-fashioned ways are easier. Technology! AGK ■ 20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, one click is great when it works, but it’s fussy. I really thought I had it the second time around but apparently not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Kantabon[edit]

Hi Beeblebrox, Since you were the one who rejected my Rollback request, I know for sure that you are an administrator, so I am requesting you to block User:Kantabon. He is clearly a troll, when I nominated one of his articles for deletion, he even thanked me. Most of his articles have been deleted and he has been warned many times.

Thank you --@B00TH$IFT (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple points:

MedCom closure[edit]

As you're probably aware, the RFC was closed with "Closure in process". I see no sign of that so far, but I'm going to inform the Committee through the mailing list that I'm going to honor the closure and reply to any new requests for mediation with a rejection because "This process is no longer in operation, please consider some other form of dispute resolution." I am not, however, going to do anything more than that. Whether closure involves shutting down the mailing list, killing our bots, etc., is up to others. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m a little perplexed myself in that I don’t know what could be taking so long. I expect closure will primarily involve marking the main pages of the committee as historical, as that was the proposal, and removing it from related DR pages since it is deprecated. I would imagine the bots don’t need shutting down, if there’s no activity there they shouldn’t have any work to do. I’ll look into the mailing list situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
After thinking about it, rather than reply to individual requests for mediation, I've modified the request page so that no new requests can be made through it and given pointers to the remaining content DR processes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay (incidentally, whilst I did not note this thread, I closed it ~30 minutes after your reply:-)).
A lot of the work has been done by Legacypac, Gloucester, AGK and all.
Among the stuff, that's yet to be done, I think disabling email-access for User:Mediation Committee would be good.
I will vacate the category of Wikipedia Mediation Committee members, (as misleading in the current context) and I think de-flagging the bot(s) would be a good idea.
Additionally, you can (probably) request a termination of mailing-list by creating a new ticket under this category at Phab. I am certain that the developers need to be asked though, for (the stuff is complicated. I don't have any idea about the willingness of developers or about whether they do it, at all.WBGconverse 09:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


On a different note, have you ever used this list?WBGconverse 10:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I did contact User:Keegan as I belive he either can do what's needed with the mailing list or knows who can, but I've not heard back from him yet. I haven't used the other list you mentioned, seems like usually UTRS admins just add notes to the tickets but maybe I'm missing out... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked the user account and revoked email from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Toolbar[edit]

Regarding your post at VPT,I think you may have missed in the section above that WritKeeper has written us a script to recreate at least the basic toolbar. I second someone's request that he take over for the WMF ... Yngvadottir (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In the subthread he said he was working on it, I did miss that it was done. Just installed it and it works! Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)