User talk:Just Step Sideways: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:46, 19 April 2015

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.

A barnstar for you!

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

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

"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)[reply]

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

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

Self-blocking request

SD0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Rollback

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

(Non-administrator comment) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. End of discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You've got a mail

Hello, Just Step Sideways. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

useless discussion with ban-evading troll

May I suggest that comments like that are not appropriate for someone with your level of permissions on the site! I realize it means less than nothing coming from an IP but it gives a lot of credence to the arguments that admins get away with conduct that would cause others to be punished! You clearly have history with these other editors and it may be hard to be unbiased. If that is the case it may be best to let someone else deal with the problem entirely. Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so full of false assumptions I don't know which one to begin with. I think we can all see the emerging consensus that this is in fact a pretty lame thing to be making a big deal over. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it will have consensus that you were right in your actions but the pattern I am seeing is your childish and unnecessarily provocative comments and I wonder if you weren't an admin if they would be tolerated. My guess is not for long. As you are no doubt aware there are a growing number of people who are concered with the conduct of admins on this site and their exclusion from policy. Myself included and you are giving proof of those concerns in your rude and openly mocking manner. Personally, given what I have seen today and in previous incidents with which you were involved and with your attitude and arrogance I would say your future career on Wiki will eventually have the same fate as Wifione and Dreadstar. But we both know how long that will take as an admin/oversighter who was previously a member of the Arbcom. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say this let me assure it is not because you are an IP, it is because I think both you and Tutelary are just people who like to stir up shit just for the sake of it: please go away and leave me alone. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 [[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page|Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page]].  <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 :laaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
+{{collapse top|useless discussion with ban-evading troll}}
 ::May I suggest that comments like that are not appropriate for someone with your level of permissions on the site! I realize it means less than nothing coming from an IP but it gives a lot of credence to the arguments that admins get away with conduct that would cause others to be punished! You clearly have history with these other editors and it may be hard to be unbiased. If that is the case it may be best to let someone else deal with the problem entirely. Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 :::This comment is so full of false assumptions I don't know which one to begin with. I think we can all see the emerging consensus that this is in fact a pretty lame thing to be making a big deal over. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Perhaps it will have consensus that you were right in your actions but the pattern I am seeing is your childish and unnecessarily provocative comments and I wonder if you weren't an admin if they would be tolerated. My guess is not for long. As you are no doubt aware there are a growing number of people who are concered with the conduct of admins on this site and their exclusion from policy. Myself included and you are giving proof of those concerns in your rude and openly mocking manner. Personally, given what I have seen today and in previous incidents with which you were involved and with your attitude and arrogance I would say your future career on Wiki will eventually have the same fate as Wifione and Dreadstar. But we both know how long that will take as an admin/oversighter who was previously a member of the Arbcom. [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 23:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
-{{outdent}}Before I say this let me assure it is not because you are an IP, it is because I think both you and Tutelary are just people who like to stir up shit just for the sake of it: please go away and leave me alone. thanks. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 23:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
+{{outdent}}Before I say this let me assure it is not because you are an IP, it is because I think both you and Tutelary are just people who like to stir up shit just for the sake of it: please go away and leave me alone. thanks. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 23:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC
+{{collapse bottom}})
 : You've been talking with Reguyla. I've blocked the IP for 12 hours (likely for all the good it will do). [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 23:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::Thanks {{U|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reguyla#Block_reset_.E2.80.93_again main account], or let us just bring it to [[WP:ANI]] for violating the standard offer, this was third time. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)