This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi Bee, thanks for your recent change to Maya Angelou. I disagree with your changes, though; the two paragraphs you omitted contained some important information about Dr. Angelou's poetry, like her recitation of her inaugural poem. I re-wrote the section after completing Poetry of Maya Angelou, and it's much shorter than what was there before. What do you think about putting it back? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
LlamaAl ( talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at the behaviour related to a single IP hopping editor that is happening here here and here as well as on the associated talk pages. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Beeblebrox: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD ( talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Happy new year. Hope you got to abuse your new powers already. Thanks for serving: no good deed will go unpunished. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you still had (or ever had) Chatanika, Alaska on your watchlist. A recent edit tipped me off to Quellcrist49 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who went even further with Fox, Alaska. All since reverted, but who knows how much further this will go. The funny thing about it? There really are a number of properties alongside or within sight of the Old Steese which are genuine eyesores, and the "Ester lesbians" may be a metaphor for the folks who run borough government and receive complaints all the time about such places. Still, the way this was written falls somewhere in between a flight of fancy and a hoax. Letting you know concurrent with warning the user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
How can I submit a checkuser request for my own username? -- Zyma ( talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You need to move your comment - use a section heading similar to those used by Guy Macon or EatsShootsAndLeave. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox, in a follow-up to the last time I ended up leaving a message on your talk page, I had found the page revolving around administrator hopefuls where I had to modify the part on my page so that it can be listed there. When it was done, my name was added to the "User with at least 30 edits in the last two months" section which is reserved for the active members. What's the link for those who are on that list to end up filling out the application information to become administrators like you? Rtkat3 ( talk) 7:27, January 8 2014 (UTC)
The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171 on the health psychology talk page called me a "troll." I would like him to stop. Iss246 ( talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
He also called me a troll in a comment he made when editing the health psychology page. Iss246 ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Iss246 has posted on his 'talk page' masses of false, derogatory postings. He has called me a troll on his talk page, and made false judgements about my qualifications. He wrote this.."You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. He also called me stupid etc etc on his talk page User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. For the record, although it matters none, I hold a Doctorate in Psychology and am certainly not a troll. I have asked him to delete these extremely defamatory statements, in the past, but he refused, even after I corrected him and provided evidence to the contrary. Currently iss246 refuses to engage in discussion but rather post information that is based on a 1986 reference I have read today, that does not support his statements. Thank you for your time. Mrm7171 ( talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
---For the record, I did not call Mrm7171 a troll. But four times on the health psychology page in a matter of days, he called me a troll. Iss246 ( talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. -- Rs chen 7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Good morrning,
I'm not sure, if this is actually the right place for my request, but since CheckUser access is necessary to answer my question, and you apparently have just that, I suppose I could do worse than to try my luck here.
The situation is the following: For several years I have edited mass murder-related articles on Wikipedia, and created amongst others the List of rampage killers. On June 20, 2012 a user named KnaveSmig posted at my talk page, offering me to download an Excel-file supposedly containing his own compilation of mass murderers, as well as 16 hours of songs related to the subject. At the time I was unsure how to deal with this, on the one hand being curious about the possibly salvageable information, on the other hand being suspicious about downloading unrequested material from an unknown person and risking an infection of my computer with malware. In the end my suspicious side prevailed and I ignored the files, though contemplated for a while to write a reply to explain myself. Considering the matter not that important I delayed writing said reply until I came to the conclusion that too much time had passed to invest any effort in something the addressed person may not even read, after all KnaveSmig left no indication that he ever came back to Wikipedia.
Then the Sandy Hook shooting happened, and when information was published in the media that Adam Lanza had a pronounced interest in mass murder and created a spreadsheet listing historic mass murderers I already had a bad feeling in my guts. But then, during my studies of mass murders I have come across several people who have compiled similar lists, and there are probably a lot of others who do the same in less public places than the internet, so I composed myself thinking that this was just a coincidence, and there's probably no connection between KnaveSmig and Adam Lanza. Then information surfaced that Lanza had a Wikipedia account and edited several articles a couple of years earlier under a different name. I waited for the media to announce that Lanza had also used the alias KnaveSmig, but this never happened, and so I assumed my suspicions were probably unfounded.
It remained that way, until recent reports stated that Lanza had also posted at a forum dedicated to the Columbine massacre around the same time he had left the note on my talk page. The pseudonym he used there was Smiggles. And since the writing style of Smiggles is comparable to KnaveSmig's my suspicions are revived that the two may be the same person.
So, to cut a long story short, would it be possible for you to check if KnaveSmig's IP address is located in Connecticut, maybe even the Newtown area, and thus confirm or refute my suspicion that I have been contacted by Adam Lanza a mere six months before the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? This question is haunting me for about a year now, and I'd really like to get some closure on that one. Thank you. ( Lord Gøn ( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC))
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ron Duncan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I get the 9 most recent revisions on my talk page deleted. The block has been lifted so there's no reason for it to be there. Finealt ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=592190539&oldid=592184696 I'm disappointed.
I voted for you, and I'm sure I've supported you in the past.
That comment is disgraceful. There are bigger things than being seen to conform. I used to think you knew that. Shame on you - I guess it's true what they say about power - if only it was real power, eh?
You're not the first person I've seen this happen to, but I so hoped for better from you.
Ah, well...Disappointed. Begoon talk 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF and perhaps vote in the "votes" section to enable us to close the case. Roger Davies talk 10:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've given up commenting on the case page. I'll just point out that when you have a WMF officer and an Arbcom member in apparent agreement that you need to be immediately desysopped, making your case visible and public is a defensive maneuver, not aggression.— Kww( talk) 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.
[3] You think you've got a problem? Autocorrect keeps changing my good curseword to mother fuchsia! darwinbish BITE ☠ 23:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Hello Beeblebrox,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [4], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
The relevant section of policy is:
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
Note the word "confuse". Its really quite a low bar. If a retired uses wish to return there are accepted mechanisms for them to do so. The block reason itself provides enough of a rational for a block and beyond that we are firmly in WP:DENY and don't template the regulars. ©Geni ( talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
When you asked for the block review an WP:AN I think it is fair to say you may not have anticipated the considerable support for sanctions of some sort against the editor. So much is clear from the fact that you overturned the original WP:RBI block without prior discussion and reversed my WP:BE edit on one of his numerous IP talk pages. In accordance with WP:ADMINACCT I would appreciate it if you would consider the points I have raised in the discussion (you did ping me about it, thanks for that). Specifically, in view of the widespread support for action from editors who have been aware of Kumioko's behaviour for some considerable time, whether your initial block reversal without discussion with the Admin. was premature. Second, whether you now accept that my WP:BE was a perfectly acceptable response at the time. Whether you realise that your AN statement about Kumioko's switching from User to IP was misleading, in view of the overwhelming evidence available and now documented relating to multiple IDs and User edits being used interchangeably within discussions (although never as an outright sockpuppet). Simple, straightforward answers here would be fine if you prefer not to participate in the now WP:TL;DR discussion at AN. Anything other than WP:Bradspeak! Thanks. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Your choice is your choice, of course, but could I ask you to reconsider
this? You made some good points, and it genuinely could be helpful if you were on the list in future.
bobrayner (
talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox! I haven't been very active lately, but I just got an e-mail with the following contents, which I ignored, but I figured someone should know:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 76.18.17.166) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:
Username: Amaury Temporary password: ******
This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password. Amaury ( talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
By mistake, I created 2 accounts, one with only my IP number 80.136.224.194. Can you delete that IP number from my question in wikipedia:Teahouse? Replacing it with my registered name would be ok, too. Thank you! Geometricjewels ( talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yuhoney20cute keeps recreating GG Next Top Model (either under that title or Gellang's Next Top Model). Since this isn't obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV, I thought I would ask you if you would, depending on which you judge to be the best decision, either block this account or salt the pages (or both). Also, her userpage is pretty much identical to the now-deleted article, so maybe that should be deleted as well. Jinkinson talk to me 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm a bit surprised at an editor with your experience taking someone's comments so personally. I think J. Johnson's comments, right or wrong, were made in good faith. Unless you really want to waste your time, you'd do better to delete or cross out your trout comment and walk away as you originally intended to do. RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Characterizing your "tinfoil hat" and "utter lunacy" comments (and now, "load of nonsense", etc.) as referring not to me as an individual, but only to my argument, is specious; you have engaged in a personal attack. As you show no willingness to discuss the matter civilly I have referred this to the WP:ANI noticeboard. See WP:ANI#User:Beeblebrox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sir;
What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?
What I do wrong to that IP ?
Is that IP correct ?
Best regards. -- B20180 ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice you cited the opinion essay WP:OFFER as the rationale for an unblock at BASC. I'm curious as to why this essay has not yet been elevated to official guideline or policy and the process to be followed to give it official status. It seems as though it is widely accepted as site organizational law, even though it currently is not. Carrite ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I may have told you this one time, but I am interested in perhaps being an administrator someday. But I wanted to ask you this: Is it a stressful job? Do you come home from work assigned to a second, possibly more stressful job as a WP administrator? — Confession0791 talk 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I saw ARBCOM recently gave this vandal another chance. FYI, he is on another vandalism spree. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, you seem to be accusing me of being a sock of Scheunemann.joshua. I hope you meant Openhacks instead.-- Auric talk 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you mention that in the Sock Puppet Investigation /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scheunemann.joshua/archive
Don't be blaming autocorrect [5] when spelling a word wrong (amend has one "m"). NE Ent 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was previously known as User:Celeste6566, but my username has changed to EmilyREditor. I just thought I would leave a short note to apologize for my poor behavior and immaturity 2 years ago. I have now matured and promise that I will be very trustworthy and try to work hard, to make up for my history of malicious actions. I also promise that I will not use sockpuppets any more; I will stick to one account for editing. Again, I'm sorry for all that I did and pledge to make a fresh start and work harder this time around. Thank you for being the awesome administrator you are. Hopefully we can maintain a better relationship as we collaborate to improve this encyclopedia. Is there anything I can do for you? EmilyREditor ( talk) 01:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I do have a question, though. What happens when you click on "thank" right next to someone's edit? Here is an example: "(cur | prev) 01:38, 18 April 2014 C.Fred (talk | contribs) . . (empty) (-34) . . (rm templates - no longer blocked, plus removing other in conjunction with standard offer) (undo | thanked)"
EmilyREditor ( talk) 04:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome back, and the information about the thanks feature. I love that feature as spreading positive feedback is a great way to build community spirit. Is there any way for another user to reply to a "thank you" message sent with this feature? EmilyREditor ( talk) 05:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking through the history of Jim Zeigler and noticed that you made some helpful edits ( this & a number of previous edits) promoting neutrality/sourcing on the article back in 2008. COI has become a major issue on this article again as the subject is currently running for office (currently the article is also up for AfD and I've noted some larger issues at a BLP noticeboard entry). Your opinion (esp. about maintainability) or any advice on curtailing the COI would be welcome. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 07:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I see an edit summary from you recently to the effect of "Joe Miller's non-notable children"? I hope you tuned into Alaska News Nightly this evening. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I read your post on EllenCT's page along with User:Horologium's comment. I'd reply on her page but I'm trying to limit my interaction - wasted enough time. I thought you should know that this is not the first instance of this from her. See her evidence from this Arbitration and her Proposal and the responses [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Baseless charges... Morphh (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am contacting you due to your ability to make deletions in edit logs on articles. The article in question is St Monica's High School and the revision to which I am referring was made on the '12:06, 29 April 2014'. The revision contains the name of a minor which is protected by UK law due to the nature of the case mentioned in the article. I feel that this mention could be harmful to the child and this edit should therefore be omitted from the logs immediately to minimise its exposure. It seems to me that the person who has made the edit has insider knowledge, perhaps somebody who knows child personally and seeks to embarrass or harass them. Their edit has already been undone by another user but I feel that it is the best course of action to remove its record entirely. Dopespawed ( talk) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the poorly-written part. However, without even trying, I found coverage from ESPN and USA Today, a Facebook page and a page on the Muni's website. I'm in another discussion, in the case of the trooper killings, about dumping the fruits of web scavenging onto the encyclopedia with little or no regard for WP:NOTNEWS, even though my complaints/concerns about that practice are hardly limited to that topic. Unlike the articles affected by that, this one is developed enough to where I can't see how mentioning it could be overwhelming. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (You were a participant in a talk-page discussion given as evidence in this discussion.) The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I urge you to acquaint yourself with this. Your view appears to be that I can't post about Austrian economics to a talk pages of a WP user because that talk page will become "related" to Austrian economics following my post. Do you see why that is circular reasoning? Also, do you see how absurd the consequences of your erroneous interpretation would be? One could never appeal Arbcom decisions, because once one posted her appeal, the page where one posted it would become "related" to Austrian economics.
For the above reasons, it's clear that the only logical interpretation of a TB is a ban from Austrian-related Wikipedia entries (and, perhaps, their associated talk pages). Of course, that doesn't mean that I couldn't be guilty of misconduct through edits to my talk page regarding AE. But it's illogical and absurd to read that as a per se violation of the TB. (I'm tagging User:Binksternet and User:Srich32977 in hopes that they will put aside their grudges and accede to the overwhelming illogical of their view.) Steeletrap ( talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this with you. You are trying to Wikilawyer your way around this. Keep it up and see what happens.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at the last few edits on Debby Ryan. I won't link for obvious reasons. Is that something that warrants revdelete?
You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Hi Bee, thanks for your recent change to Maya Angelou. I disagree with your changes, though; the two paragraphs you omitted contained some important information about Dr. Angelou's poetry, like her recitation of her inaugural poem. I re-wrote the section after completing Poetry of Maya Angelou, and it's much shorter than what was there before. What do you think about putting it back? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
LlamaAl ( talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at the behaviour related to a single IP hopping editor that is happening here here and here as well as on the associated talk pages. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Beeblebrox: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD ( talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Happy new year. Hope you got to abuse your new powers already. Thanks for serving: no good deed will go unpunished. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you still had (or ever had) Chatanika, Alaska on your watchlist. A recent edit tipped me off to Quellcrist49 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who went even further with Fox, Alaska. All since reverted, but who knows how much further this will go. The funny thing about it? There really are a number of properties alongside or within sight of the Old Steese which are genuine eyesores, and the "Ester lesbians" may be a metaphor for the folks who run borough government and receive complaints all the time about such places. Still, the way this was written falls somewhere in between a flight of fancy and a hoax. Letting you know concurrent with warning the user. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
How can I submit a checkuser request for my own username? -- Zyma ( talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You need to move your comment - use a section heading similar to those used by Guy Macon or EatsShootsAndLeave. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox, in a follow-up to the last time I ended up leaving a message on your talk page, I had found the page revolving around administrator hopefuls where I had to modify the part on my page so that it can be listed there. When it was done, my name was added to the "User with at least 30 edits in the last two months" section which is reserved for the active members. What's the link for those who are on that list to end up filling out the application information to become administrators like you? Rtkat3 ( talk) 7:27, January 8 2014 (UTC)
The drafting arbitrator of the Nightscream case has placed elements of the proposed decision on the workshop page. Your comments are welcome. -- Rs chen 7754 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171 on the health psychology talk page called me a "troll." I would like him to stop. Iss246 ( talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
He also called me a troll in a comment he made when editing the health psychology page. Iss246 ( talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Iss246 has posted on his 'talk page' masses of false, derogatory postings. He has called me a troll on his talk page, and made false judgements about my qualifications. He wrote this.."You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. He also called me stupid etc etc on his talk page User talk:Iss246 under the heading Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page from September 2013. For the record, although it matters none, I hold a Doctorate in Psychology and am certainly not a troll. I have asked him to delete these extremely defamatory statements, in the past, but he refused, even after I corrected him and provided evidence to the contrary. Currently iss246 refuses to engage in discussion but rather post information that is based on a 1986 reference I have read today, that does not support his statements. Thank you for your time. Mrm7171 ( talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
---For the record, I did not call Mrm7171 a troll. But four times on the health psychology page in a matter of days, he called me a troll. Iss246 ( talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted at the above page for the Nightscream arbitration case, and arbitrators will now vote on the proposals. Comments can be left on the talk page. -- Rs chen 7754 10:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 01:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Good morrning,
I'm not sure, if this is actually the right place for my request, but since CheckUser access is necessary to answer my question, and you apparently have just that, I suppose I could do worse than to try my luck here.
The situation is the following: For several years I have edited mass murder-related articles on Wikipedia, and created amongst others the List of rampage killers. On June 20, 2012 a user named KnaveSmig posted at my talk page, offering me to download an Excel-file supposedly containing his own compilation of mass murderers, as well as 16 hours of songs related to the subject. At the time I was unsure how to deal with this, on the one hand being curious about the possibly salvageable information, on the other hand being suspicious about downloading unrequested material from an unknown person and risking an infection of my computer with malware. In the end my suspicious side prevailed and I ignored the files, though contemplated for a while to write a reply to explain myself. Considering the matter not that important I delayed writing said reply until I came to the conclusion that too much time had passed to invest any effort in something the addressed person may not even read, after all KnaveSmig left no indication that he ever came back to Wikipedia.
Then the Sandy Hook shooting happened, and when information was published in the media that Adam Lanza had a pronounced interest in mass murder and created a spreadsheet listing historic mass murderers I already had a bad feeling in my guts. But then, during my studies of mass murders I have come across several people who have compiled similar lists, and there are probably a lot of others who do the same in less public places than the internet, so I composed myself thinking that this was just a coincidence, and there's probably no connection between KnaveSmig and Adam Lanza. Then information surfaced that Lanza had a Wikipedia account and edited several articles a couple of years earlier under a different name. I waited for the media to announce that Lanza had also used the alias KnaveSmig, but this never happened, and so I assumed my suspicions were probably unfounded.
It remained that way, until recent reports stated that Lanza had also posted at a forum dedicated to the Columbine massacre around the same time he had left the note on my talk page. The pseudonym he used there was Smiggles. And since the writing style of Smiggles is comparable to KnaveSmig's my suspicions are revived that the two may be the same person.
So, to cut a long story short, would it be possible for you to check if KnaveSmig's IP address is located in Connecticut, maybe even the Newtown area, and thus confirm or refute my suspicion that I have been contacted by Adam Lanza a mere six months before the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? This question is haunting me for about a year now, and I'd really like to get some closure on that one. Thank you. ( Lord Gøn ( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC))
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ron Duncan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I get the 9 most recent revisions on my talk page deleted. The block has been lifted so there's no reason for it to be there. Finealt ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=592190539&oldid=592184696 I'm disappointed.
I voted for you, and I'm sure I've supported you in the past.
That comment is disgraceful. There are bigger things than being seen to conform. I used to think you knew that. Shame on you - I guess it's true what they say about power - if only it was real power, eh?
You're not the first person I've seen this happen to, but I so hoped for better from you.
Ah, well...Disappointed. Begoon talk 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF and perhaps vote in the "votes" section to enable us to close the case. Roger Davies talk 10:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've given up commenting on the case page. I'll just point out that when you have a WMF officer and an Arbcom member in apparent agreement that you need to be immediately desysopped, making your case visible and public is a defensive maneuver, not aggression.— Kww( talk) 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.
[3] You think you've got a problem? Autocorrect keeps changing my good curseword to mother fuchsia! darwinbish BITE ☠ 23:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Hello Beeblebrox,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [4], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
The relevant section of policy is:
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
Note the word "confuse". Its really quite a low bar. If a retired uses wish to return there are accepted mechanisms for them to do so. The block reason itself provides enough of a rational for a block and beyond that we are firmly in WP:DENY and don't template the regulars. ©Geni ( talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
When you asked for the block review an WP:AN I think it is fair to say you may not have anticipated the considerable support for sanctions of some sort against the editor. So much is clear from the fact that you overturned the original WP:RBI block without prior discussion and reversed my WP:BE edit on one of his numerous IP talk pages. In accordance with WP:ADMINACCT I would appreciate it if you would consider the points I have raised in the discussion (you did ping me about it, thanks for that). Specifically, in view of the widespread support for action from editors who have been aware of Kumioko's behaviour for some considerable time, whether your initial block reversal without discussion with the Admin. was premature. Second, whether you now accept that my WP:BE was a perfectly acceptable response at the time. Whether you realise that your AN statement about Kumioko's switching from User to IP was misleading, in view of the overwhelming evidence available and now documented relating to multiple IDs and User edits being used interchangeably within discussions (although never as an outright sockpuppet). Simple, straightforward answers here would be fine if you prefer not to participate in the now WP:TL;DR discussion at AN. Anything other than WP:Bradspeak! Thanks. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Your choice is your choice, of course, but could I ask you to reconsider
this? You made some good points, and it genuinely could be helpful if you were on the list in future.
bobrayner (
talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox! I haven't been very active lately, but I just got an e-mail with the following contents, which I ignored, but I figured someone should know:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 76.18.17.166) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:
Username: Amaury Temporary password: ******
This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password. Amaury ( talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
By mistake, I created 2 accounts, one with only my IP number 80.136.224.194. Can you delete that IP number from my question in wikipedia:Teahouse? Replacing it with my registered name would be ok, too. Thank you! Geometricjewels ( talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yuhoney20cute keeps recreating GG Next Top Model (either under that title or Gellang's Next Top Model). Since this isn't obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV, I thought I would ask you if you would, depending on which you judge to be the best decision, either block this account or salt the pages (or both). Also, her userpage is pretty much identical to the now-deleted article, so maybe that should be deleted as well. Jinkinson talk to me 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm a bit surprised at an editor with your experience taking someone's comments so personally. I think J. Johnson's comments, right or wrong, were made in good faith. Unless you really want to waste your time, you'd do better to delete or cross out your trout comment and walk away as you originally intended to do. RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Characterizing your "tinfoil hat" and "utter lunacy" comments (and now, "load of nonsense", etc.) as referring not to me as an individual, but only to my argument, is specious; you have engaged in a personal attack. As you show no willingness to discuss the matter civilly I have referred this to the WP:ANI noticeboard. See WP:ANI#User:Beeblebrox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sir;
What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?
What I do wrong to that IP ?
Is that IP correct ?
Best regards. -- B20180 ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice you cited the opinion essay WP:OFFER as the rationale for an unblock at BASC. I'm curious as to why this essay has not yet been elevated to official guideline or policy and the process to be followed to give it official status. It seems as though it is widely accepted as site organizational law, even though it currently is not. Carrite ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I may have told you this one time, but I am interested in perhaps being an administrator someday. But I wanted to ask you this: Is it a stressful job? Do you come home from work assigned to a second, possibly more stressful job as a WP administrator? — Confession0791 talk 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I saw ARBCOM recently gave this vandal another chance. FYI, he is on another vandalism spree. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, you seem to be accusing me of being a sock of Scheunemann.joshua. I hope you meant Openhacks instead.-- Auric talk 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you mention that in the Sock Puppet Investigation /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scheunemann.joshua/archive
Don't be blaming autocorrect [5] when spelling a word wrong (amend has one "m"). NE Ent 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I was previously known as User:Celeste6566, but my username has changed to EmilyREditor. I just thought I would leave a short note to apologize for my poor behavior and immaturity 2 years ago. I have now matured and promise that I will be very trustworthy and try to work hard, to make up for my history of malicious actions. I also promise that I will not use sockpuppets any more; I will stick to one account for editing. Again, I'm sorry for all that I did and pledge to make a fresh start and work harder this time around. Thank you for being the awesome administrator you are. Hopefully we can maintain a better relationship as we collaborate to improve this encyclopedia. Is there anything I can do for you? EmilyREditor ( talk) 01:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I do have a question, though. What happens when you click on "thank" right next to someone's edit? Here is an example: "(cur | prev) 01:38, 18 April 2014 C.Fred (talk | contribs) . . (empty) (-34) . . (rm templates - no longer blocked, plus removing other in conjunction with standard offer) (undo | thanked)"
EmilyREditor ( talk) 04:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome back, and the information about the thanks feature. I love that feature as spreading positive feedback is a great way to build community spirit. Is there any way for another user to reply to a "thank you" message sent with this feature? EmilyREditor ( talk) 05:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking through the history of Jim Zeigler and noticed that you made some helpful edits ( this & a number of previous edits) promoting neutrality/sourcing on the article back in 2008. COI has become a major issue on this article again as the subject is currently running for office (currently the article is also up for AfD and I've noted some larger issues at a BLP noticeboard entry). Your opinion (esp. about maintainability) or any advice on curtailing the COI would be welcome. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 07:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I see an edit summary from you recently to the effect of "Joe Miller's non-notable children"? I hope you tuned into Alaska News Nightly this evening. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I read your post on EllenCT's page along with User:Horologium's comment. I'd reply on her page but I'm trying to limit my interaction - wasted enough time. I thought you should know that this is not the first instance of this from her. See her evidence from this Arbitration and her Proposal and the responses [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Baseless charges... Morphh (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am contacting you due to your ability to make deletions in edit logs on articles. The article in question is St Monica's High School and the revision to which I am referring was made on the '12:06, 29 April 2014'. The revision contains the name of a minor which is protected by UK law due to the nature of the case mentioned in the article. I feel that this mention could be harmful to the child and this edit should therefore be omitted from the logs immediately to minimise its exposure. It seems to me that the person who has made the edit has insider knowledge, perhaps somebody who knows child personally and seeks to embarrass or harass them. Their edit has already been undone by another user but I feel that it is the best course of action to remove its record entirely. Dopespawed ( talk) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the poorly-written part. However, without even trying, I found coverage from ESPN and USA Today, a Facebook page and a page on the Muni's website. I'm in another discussion, in the case of the trooper killings, about dumping the fruits of web scavenging onto the encyclopedia with little or no regard for WP:NOTNEWS, even though my complaints/concerns about that practice are hardly limited to that topic. Unlike the articles affected by that, this one is developed enough to where I can't see how mentioning it could be overwhelming. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (You were a participant in a talk-page discussion given as evidence in this discussion.) The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I urge you to acquaint yourself with this. Your view appears to be that I can't post about Austrian economics to a talk pages of a WP user because that talk page will become "related" to Austrian economics following my post. Do you see why that is circular reasoning? Also, do you see how absurd the consequences of your erroneous interpretation would be? One could never appeal Arbcom decisions, because once one posted her appeal, the page where one posted it would become "related" to Austrian economics.
For the above reasons, it's clear that the only logical interpretation of a TB is a ban from Austrian-related Wikipedia entries (and, perhaps, their associated talk pages). Of course, that doesn't mean that I couldn't be guilty of misconduct through edits to my talk page regarding AE. But it's illogical and absurd to read that as a per se violation of the TB. (I'm tagging User:Binksternet and User:Srich32977 in hopes that they will put aside their grudges and accede to the overwhelming illogical of their view.) Steeletrap ( talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this with you. You are trying to Wikilawyer your way around this. Keep it up and see what happens.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at the last few edits on Debby Ryan. I won't link for obvious reasons. Is that something that warrants revdelete?
You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |