Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Beeblebrox)


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 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


please stay in the top three tiers


Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 9 48 0 57
TfD 0 0 12 0 12
MfD 0 0 3 0 3
FfD 0 0 3 0 3
RfD 0 2 29 0 31
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

−

Hey...[edit]

...old friend. I'll get used to the name. Good to see you. I'm about to head out and get a beer; you should come. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey back at you. It's been a weird adjustment for me as well, but I'm digging it now. I believe I have a couple of cans of "Quilter's Irish Death" in the fridge, it's like 9%ABV and dark as the night, and I don't have anywhere to be this afternoon, so consider it done. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the whole thing should be closed simply because it's being discussed at DYK[edit]

I have no objection to closing the 24-hour block issue, but discussion at DYK can't really result in a...well, result. There is an actual problem. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main discussion had actually stalled out pretty much the moment the block subthread was opened, I just left a pointer there in case people still wanted to discuss the underlying issue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I agree with you about the utility of 24-hour blocks. That's actually a big part of why I closed the discussion. Short, timed blocks are usually issued shortly after the incident that justifies them, to stop ongoing disruption. As a 24-hour block was the only sanction being actively discussed, and nobody had issued it after two days, it just seemed pointless to leave it open. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at ANI[edit]

NOPE
I reject the entire premise of this objection and therefore will not act on it. Do whatever you think you must. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your close at ANI was not appropriate, especially based on your off-wiki friendship with ATG. I ask you to allow discussion to continue and consider yourself involved. The discussion was less than two days old and participation was not completed. You closed two discussions involving ATG in their favor twice this week. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki friendship? Um, what? Since when does posting on the same forum, and occasionally agreeing with each other, constitute sufficient evidence to merit claims of being 'involved'? If that is the standard we are going to apply, we need to ban the entire Wikipedia contributor base, since they regularly express agreement with each other regarding all sorts of things, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than that. It is on an anti-wiki group that posts personal info of wikipedia editors and skewers DYK every day in a thread called cluster fuck. You and JSS are frequent participants WO. We need a review of this involved action which served you by cutting off ongoing discussion. Lightburst (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Why not add 'burn the heretics' to Wikipedia policy and go the whole hog. Everything will then be wonderful in Wikiland, because nobody in their right mind will say otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot hoot[edit]

The spoilsport's barnowl star
Think you know it owl  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did get a good laugh out of it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent accounts disrupting the Teahouse and Help Desk[edit]

Hey, thanks for doing your part in blocking yet another account from the same user. Any chance that an IP account creation ban can be enforced for the address or range? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping a CU shows up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre and does exactly that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else gets to it first there's also Quovalos now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your opinion[edit]

Hello, Just Step Sideways. I'm here to consult you about an unblock request, hoping that we can settle this one more amicably than the last one.

You quite rightly imposed a spamusername block on an editor known at the time as "Sagicor CorpDev", now renamed to "TWall4". The editor has posted an unblock request on their talk page, and then, impatient at the delay in getting a response, a longer appeal on UTRS. The essential points are, I think, that their username has been changed, thus dealing with the username part of the "spamusername", and they have attempted to deal with the other aspect of the block rationale by disclosing their COI and their PAID status, and undertaking to submit requests to edit by talk page posts. On the face of it, that means that they have dealt with the reasons for the block. I am less than 100% convinced, because their previous editing, now deleted, was unambiguously promotional, but since they have undertaken to work via edit requests that may not be important, as there's always the answer "no". My conclusion is that although I'm not totally convinced, I would be inclined to give them another chance, with the block button in reserve if necessary. Do you have any opinion on the matter? JBW (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think we see things pretty much the same. A WP:ROPE unblock seems reasonable. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivendra Singh Chauhan[edit]

I PRODed this page and I wonder if this page is salvageable in any ways or if I made the right decision proposing it for deletion. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure why you came to me with this, but being co-founder of India Against Corruption seems at least kind of notable. It's possible the biography could be expanded from the references at that article. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Possible Splitting Strategies[edit]

I’ve thought about the possibility of splitting the List of indoor arenas in the United States page. After some consideration, I think the arenas should be split by state. Here’s how it would look for Florida: user:Wjenkins96/sandbox. Any suggestions? Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus 1RR appeal[edit]

Hi Beebs, question about your closure of Marcelus's appeal. As this is a contentious topics restriction "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN" is required to modify it. My reading your close is that there is isn't a consensus to maintain the restriction rather than there being a consensus to change it. Is that right? Either way I don't think there's any reason to change your close but wanted to ask the question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd say sometimes there is a disconnect between the wording of policy and the reality of a situation and we just have to do our best to reconcile the two. The appeal had been open for nearly two weeks and had been archived and brought back out twice, with nobody really voicing a strong opinion in favor of retaining it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for community-based restrictions given there's only one place (AN) to appeal them. The reason I asked is that for CTOP restrictions there is an intentionally higher bar to pass but also more places to appeal it (imposing admin, AN, AE & ARCA). As I said no reason to change the close but something to consider. I guess part of the consideration is whether there's a need to ask ArbCom to change the appeals wording so it's more about a consensus to maintain the restriction rather than a consensus to overturn. I don't really think that's necessary but YMMV. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking socky around my talk[edit]

Thanks for looking out. I have been unkind discussing your involvement in other places for a few years now. But then tonight in the midst of being cross with me, you demonstrated adminsitrative neutrality. The same thing happened with SFR recently - and it surprised me. The longer I am on the project the more I learn to respect the regulars and recalibrate my thinking. I think I know whose sock that was but I will likely stay mum. cheers! Lightburst (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought you did the reverts, it was another editor and admin and a blocked SPA, but anyway, carry on and enjoy your week! Lightburst (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, they've also sent a notice on this very talk page, as they did with others. Not gonna lie, I don't like socks trying to throw fuel on the fire. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed this particular incident, nonetheless, I can assure you I don't give block evading trolls a free pass just because their target is someone I happen to have been in a disagreement with. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in spite of our disagreements I know that is true. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the BLP Deletion[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for considering my autopatrolled request (at that specific forum). I do, however, want to make a note regarding the deletion of my BLP page. The first deletion nomination of the page came last year when the person was only a nominee, and the nominator had no issue with it being in draftspace until the point in which she became confirmed. However, when she was confirmed and the article was brought back into the mainspace, there was another nomination for deletion because like you mentioned, the sourcing was a bit scarce. I didn't object to the deletion (or partake in the debate), but I do agree that it could be better sourcing (I was originally going to update it to show confirmation status but never got around to it). That being said, does one BLP deletion really disqualify me from autopatrolled, seeing that I've had really few (if any) problems with my creations as of late? After all, I've been extra careful when doing those articles. If you won't grant me the right, that's fine (though I'm very bummed about it seeing another decline). That said, when could I apply again? After all, the new page curation feed is very backlogged and I feel like the tool will help me lighten it up at least to some extent (and given my translations, which you conceded as good, it wouldn't need to be checked). It would be a pretty big headache needing to wait another few months before I could maybe apply again for a third (!) time. In any event, please let me know what the potential next steps are. Thanks. Losipov (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for convenience, here are the nominations if you need to review them again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_M._Adams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_M._Adams_(2nd_nomination) Losipov (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said over at PERM, I did come close to granting it based on the bulk of your work being totally ok. But then I read that AFD. The article was moved to draftspace as a result of the first AFD, and you moved it back to article space a month ago without improving the sourcing at all. The community has made it very clear that WP:BLP is one of our most important policies, and that such articles need to have good sourcing, or they shouldn't exist. Since the community takes this so seriously, admin actions need to reflect that concern. This obviously isn't a case of "you will never be qualified for this" but with such a recent concern with a poorly-sourced BLP I just don't see it right now. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine. Maybe I'll just re-apply in a month or so for it (assuming that no problems arise in between now and then). In the meantime I'll work on bringing more stuff over. Again, thank you for consideration over at PERM, and even though it's frustrating I didn't get it now, I'll just reapply in the near future. Losipov (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled![edit]

Hi Just Step Sideways. I didn't want to leave a comment under the PERM request earlier as I thought the request would be declined. I just wanted to know if these came up when evaluating User:Monhiroe for Autopatrolled rights and this at Draft:Ravikumar M, where it seems the subject edited their own article after the draft was created 3 days before! Most of their recent articles have maintenance tags as well! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do usually check the applicant's talk page for any recent issues, but it looks like I didn't in this case as the notification of the COIN discussion is still there and that would've got my attention if I'd seen it. I'll reconsider. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again at their article creations, I looked at twelve recent articles and they only tag I found was at Akkaran, where a user added an empty section and tagged it as an empty section. The COI and the copyright problems at Commons seem like real concerns, but they do not seem related to article creation, which is what autopatrolled is all about. They appear blameless in the situation at the draft article you mention, and indeed asked for it to be deleted. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I beg to differ. From my experience here, which is obviously very less compared to others, I have only seen autopatrolled rights granted to very prolific creators of clean articles who also have a strong command over the English language.
For someone who has been here since 2022 with over 80+ articles, they still cite references before the period [1], leave the talk pages empty Talk:The Akaali Talk:Kanni (2024 Tamil-language film) Talk:Pagalariyaan, limited proficiency to communicate/write in English without the help of an AI [2] [3] [4], Undisclosed COI/UPE at Nivedhithaa Sathish (Not following NPOV - She made a splash) and Srikanth Deva. I am surprised how a random editor can find a draft that was created 3 days before by Monhiroe and add content to it unless the creator is in contact with the subject, another case of undisclosed COI/PE at Draft:Ravikumar M. Wikipedia:OBSART
Acknowledging that they have worked with many cinema artists and politicians but failing to disclose the same is a big red flag. A NPR should obviously be looking over Monhiroe's contributions per the above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways&oldid=1227785544"