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 12:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

please stay in the top three tiers

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Ten years already. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Where does the time go :-) Congrats B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Swan Lake fire[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 2 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Swan Lake fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the lightning-caused Swan Lake fire in Alaska has burned over 160,000 acres (65,000 ha) of wildland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Swan Lake fire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Swan Lake fire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, I didn't expect it to make it there so quickly! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


I have advised Guy Macon to leave clerking of ArbCom pages to the Clerks, and I have adjusted your section heading. SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it be possible to get some clarity as to where, if anywhere, it says that all the section headers must conform to the same style? Kinda the whole point of this case is about being transparent about what the rules are... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been part of Clerking procedure for some time - Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement_and_evidence_management (and take a look at previous cases); however, I take your point that people unfamiliar with ArbCom cases would not be aware of this and other procedures. To forestall any umbridge or disquiet, it might be best to include such procedures in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, and perhaps have a link to that guide on each ArbCom page. Wikipedia procedures are the most arcane in the universe, nobody knows them all, and even if you think you do, in the meantime they have been changed! I suspect I unknowingly break at least one protocol a week! SilkTork (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not exactly in a place where it is obvious to those making comments. Personally I don't agree at all with the ban on threaded discussion on the PD talk page, in particular since arbs and clerks are apparently exempt from it and feel free to reply wherever. I understand the need for it in the initial request page, but not on the PD talk page, which is as far as I know the only talk page where threaded discussion is verboten. But I do appreciate you providing the link. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I've just re-read that section again, and upon closer examination it doesn't seem to apply to PD talk pages, or any talk pages. It also appears that this was a decision made by the clerks which seems a bit ridiculous. Arbcom clerks can't tell the community how talk pages are to be formatted, even on arbitration committee pages. Talk pages belong to the community, not the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the ArbCom pages as being ArbCom pages rather than community talk pages. I see them as being the place where the Committee can discuss matters publicly with input from the community. Given that matters being discussed are often the ones that create heat and conflict, that the Clerks bring shape and some decorum to discussions is vital. Bear in mind that ArbCom also have the emal list, and tend to discuss matters there which are not always private matters, but the discussions are certainly free from observation and criticism. The more order and decorum the Clerks can bring to the ArbCom pages the more likely it is that future Committees can be encouraged to conduct the whole of their discussions on ArbCom pages (other than matters which are genuinely private). Any lessening of the control over ArbCom pages in any sense of belief in community ownership of the ArbCom process will likely in reality to result in less community ownership; unless, of course, the community takes responsibility for decorum on ArbCom pages and indicates to all users that order and civility on ArbCom pages are required, such as, for example, commenting in your own section and using uniform and neutral headings which do not attack other users. The day a non-Clerk can adjust another's section heading to conform to uniformity and neutrality without pushback or complaint will be the day we know that the community do truly own the ArbCom pages. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That sounds real nice (although I don't necessarily agree) but it does nothing to assuage my concern that there actually is no policy that says PD talk pages are subject to these policies, and that the rule you did point to was apparently made up on the clerks mailing list, which isn't how policy, even for arbitration pages, gets made so far as I know. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork:: In case you missed it, now he's just deliberately being disruptive to make a point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought that your position was that making your point in the TOC is a good thing. Now you say it is bad? You certainly had no qualms about doing it yourself by inserting "Guy Macon violating WP:POINT up and down this page" into the table of contents with a subsection header. WP:GOOSE, anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Request that you remove your comments about me at Arbcom[edit]

how about you stop acting as a self-appointed enforcer of rules you don't even know, that works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the table of comments of this version: [1]

Now compare it with the table of comments of this version: [2]

Also, please note the email I just got from a Clerk saying "Yeah, you were right" with a link to the TOC change that removed the disruption that you were fighting so hard to allow.

I am not sure whether it is your position that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is OK if done by others and not by me, or that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is OK if the point is "Fram shouldn't have to go through an RfA" or "Guy Macon is doing bad things" but not OK if the point is "making your points in the TOC instead of in your comments is disruptive".

We can continue arguing with each other here on your talk page or on my talk page if you really want to, but your complaints against me on the Arbcom page are now referring to something that I removed from my comments (so you did get everything you asked for), and does not further the purpose of having a page where the arbs can see the comments of the community regarding Fram's ban, so I am politely asking you to remove them.

If you really want to pursue this, we can have a discussion on the clerk's noticeboard -- hopefully after the case closes. I am inclined to drop this now; I got what I wanted (no more arms race as editors compete to see how many points they can get enshrined into the table of contents) and you got your way (I removed every word that you had objected to, and the much-needed clerking was done by a clerk). Shall we simply agree to drop the stick, and not bother the Arbs with our disagreement? I don't know if you noticed this, but they have a lot to deal with without reading about a fight between two editors about table of contents disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).


Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RfA. Your kind words, there and elsewhere, are truly appreciated. I look forward to when our wiki paths will cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Barkeep49, you made it! Congrats! Drmies (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Drmies, indeed I did. I hadn't gotten to you yet but since we're both here let me thank you for your support and the advice you offered. Knowing the way you thought about me is indeed an honor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. Bonus thanks to Beeblebrox for tolerating this extra intrusion by me on his talk page.
  • My pleasure. Welcome to the squad; we appreciate you sticking your neck out. Beeblebrox can confirm that no good deed goes unpunished here. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, but my talk page is always open. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Rollback Permissions[edit]

Thank you for the kind words that you shared for me! I will be sure to use these with responsibility! HeartGlow30797 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Page creation[edit]

Hello Beeblebrox, I think you have mistaken, Being part of that movie team, I was trying to create a page for our movie. So that i can add relavant facts and attaching reference links. I am not writing any article as part of promotions or as a influence marketer. I tried only to put forth the facts, not any paid advocacy. Thank you. Santhoshikrithi (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Santhoshikrithi: ok, here's the problem: Wikipedia's definition of promoting something is not just limited to blatant advertising. The fact that you said "our movie" makes it clear that you do in fact have a conflict of interest here. And the fact that you already admitted as much, as you should have, and then changed your mind and removed it the next day is pretty telling as well. And then we have your friend @Izaccess: in the section right below this one, who happened to edit the same article on the same day, displaying almost the exact same denial. You are both pretty clearly connected to the subject, and writing about your own projects is discouraged on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Beeblebrox, Please note I am not paid any compensation for publishing articles. Izaccess (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)