User talk:Just Step Sideways

I used to be called Beeblebrox. I'm fine with it if anyone still calls me that, or Beebs, or whatever.

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 22:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

XFD backlog
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	5	38	43
TfD	1	7	8
MfD	1	3	4
FfD	1	2	3
RfD	0	68	68
AfD	0	1	1

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke		16 September 2024	4/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

−

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Your closes were pragmatic, humane and timely. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just saw it and it seemed to be dragging on longer than needed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been an unpleasant but inevitable end to a set of long running difficult situations. I hope the subject can find fulfilment elsewhere, in an outlet that is suited to their particular skills. There has been one failed appeal already, and I am certain there will be more. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. I now realize that you had the best of intentions. The outpouring of support has brightened what was a low point in my WP career. I use this quote as a Seasonal Greeting but it fits here too. I realize that it's not on you...my typo led to the Block. My Mother taught me to be generous. I do this for her.

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do hope it is understood that the block was based on the idea that you wouldn't do that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article in sandbox page

because I'm not sure if in English Wikipedia this is forbidden - in Greek, it's forbidden - check it out. It's the user-preferred version of the article and has been there since January. Thanks! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you asking, to delete my sandbox? It is my right to edit an article to make it better. what are you afraid of? Montigliani (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule on the English Wikipedia against copying article content into a sandbox and working on it there, and it seems pretty clear that this is being actively edited. WP:BLP does apply everywhere though, so if there is unsourced or improperly sourced material that should be removed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.! thanks! D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanction evasion

Could you look into User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Redirects? The user's block was upgraded from main space to site wide and is now using his own talk page try to gain editorial input into article space which goes against his community sanctions. I believe it may need to be changed to "can not edit own talk page". Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been considering that due to the continuing WP:IDHT behavior. I'm going to be out and about for a bit but I'll check back in on it later. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about block

Hi, Just_Step_Sideways:

I've seen you blocked this user on August 2. My question about this issue is: can an user be blocked without any previous warnings? I'm answering you this because he had made some few (but useful) contributions in football articles. I don't have any personal relationship with the user, just wondering if there is a possibility to reconsider the block in case he changes his nickname.

Thanks for you reply in advance. Fma12 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-warning blocks are very common for promotional username, the relevant policy section is WP:ORGNAME. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for them to be unblocked if they choose a new name and file a reasonable appeal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Contributor to Wikipedia. Does That Make Me Media?

I have been covering the upcoming trials of Nicholas Rossi (sometimes Nicholas Alahverdian) under the "Talk" section of his page. His two trials are in Utah, and the case has created (apparently) some national and international interest, and the separate Utah District Courts are now only opening up the WEBEX link to media, which is a reversal, as the other pre-trial hearings have been open to the public.

The case is unique: Two separate rape charges from 2008, but the person charged was found in Scotland, fought extradition for some two years, and continues to claim that this is a case of mistaken identity. There are numerous podcasts (Audible/BBC/Peacock) on the case to date. I get they are media.

I was given a polite, but firm answer that only those necessary, or those of the media who apply can watch the proceedings. Leaving me to ask... as I write fairly in the Talk section about the trial, am I media?

If so, I need to apply, and they decide if I get to watch.

Thank you! LearnMore2024! (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this does not make you a reporter for the "media" (which in this context most assuredly means news outlets). What's more, talk pages should not be used in this manner for giving blow by blow accounts of the trial. That's not what talk pages are for.

Most importantly, you need to read and fully understand our WP:Biographies of living persons policy. This is our top policy and applies to all living people, whether they are the subject of the article or not, plus it applies to anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, user pages, draft space, as well as main article space. Wikipedia is a tertiary source not a news media outlet. This means you need to provide WP:Reliable sources that are WP:Secondary sources. You should not be using court documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY --not even on talk pages-- and everything you post should be already published in a newspaper or other such secondary source. Also, we should not be naming people who are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY (like judges, witnesses, or other people involved in the trial) .

Much of what you posted on the talk page looks like a violation of BLP policy in one way or another and should probably be deleted. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is entirely my error, and I am thankful for the correction, as I did not intend to violate any policies or practices. For the record, I did not want to be media.

I will sign off, and please delete as needed. I want to remain a fan of Wikipedia, and don't care to be part of an ongoing problem. LearnMore2024! (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not intended to scare you off, as I'm sure there are useful contribution you can make. I didn't mean to be harsh, it's just that we have to be very careful when writing about living people, because we can do serious harm to them, even unintentionally. There's a learning curve for all newcomers here, so we're pretty forgiving of mistakes, especially if a person is willing to correct them and learn from the experience. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth has it right, WP editors are not the media, we record here what the media has already reported. This particular case has a lot of highly unusual aspects and will doubtless continue to be reported on as it goes forward, so we should have plenty of decent sources to keep it up to date. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and you were not harsh, you were firm. I had not fully understood my role, the impact to the greater good of Wikipedia, so it is appropriate that you take the necessary steps of deleting what I wrote. I don't want to be media, and I don't want to break the rules.

I'll step back, read and understand what I need to, as I should have, and please, fix/delete my entries. I can learn from my mistakes, and I thank you for your help and understanding. And thank you both for the roles in which you perform for Wikepedia! 173.63.207.124 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit you made six years ago has been amended

Hi, please see User talk:Redrose64#Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(replied there) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mail coming your way

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.

Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Ehrmahgahd I've been an admin for fifteen years...Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Fuad Shukr handout.png

Thanks for uploading File:Fuad Shukr handout.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could Greg page be blanked too?

I noticed an admin blanked a page of a similar user who did something similar with populating Wikipedia with family genealogy junk with junk sources. Special:Diff/1064051435. Do you think Greghenderson2006's user page qualifies for this blanking too or maybe even deletion? Graywalls (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just undid the blanking of RAN's talk page because I don't see an actual legitimate reason for having blanked it. Users can have almost anything they want on their user page, blocked or not. If there was any indication that the content on Greg's userpage was part of ongoing disruption from him I would fully support it, but at the monent I don't see any reason to do so. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

One of your statements got crossposted to the user talk page of someone globally locked for unspecified sockpuppetry.[1] I found them in the history of Macdonald triad where there has been other suspicious activity recently, chiefly this standalone edit:[2]

I'm on my sock hunter arc RN... So, should I report this, and if so, where? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure than one edit from over a month ago is going to be found compelling at WP:SPI, but if you are convinced it is a slam dunk, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daner's Creek would be the correct venue for reporting it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The edit just seemed very strange to me. Especially because it was their only one. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indef-blocked user pages

WRT [3] - if the user is indefinitely blocked for violations of Wikipedia policies, and they're not coming back after however many years, we're distributing their user page content because of ... some sort of a memorial? A little shrine to Wikipedia abuse? :) But more seriously, if we're not even telling other users that this happened, we're not doing this history right. There isn't even a {{blocked}} template anywhere on there. --Joy (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated when reverting, I am not aware of any precedent or guidance that supports this action. If you can point me to where it says we do that I'll happily revert, but I'm pretty darn sure it is not standard procedure to blank user pages. If you'd like to change that feel free to propose it at the appropriate venue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I have revoked his talk page access, as it has been six years of him editing the talk page without filing an appeal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to follow some of the basic tenets of encyclopedia - it should describe things as they are. Leaving the userspace writings of an indefinitely blocked user verbatim creates the false impression in whoever sees that - that this user is still just another user, in good standing.

This is something I would see either blanked or marked.

Blanking is mentioned as remedy for inappropriate content in WP:UP - obviously to what extent this content is inappropriate is moot, and I don't mind your revert if you think it isn't.

Marking is why we have templates like {{uw-blockindef}} etc. I don't know offhand how to measure how often this is done, as the templates are not transcluded but substituted, but it is mentioned as something normal by WP:BP. --Joy (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed now that the marking exists at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), thanks. Still a bit odd to have all that at the user page itself, but hey. --Joy (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WP:UP#GOALS says Excessive unrelated content includes ... information ... not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. So if a user's been indef-blocked, 100KB of their user page content can hardly be considered closely related to Wikipedia's goals. --Joy (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking templates are normally placed on the talk page of the user who is blocked, to inform them why they are blocked and instruct them on how to appeal, and the user is perfectly free to remove such notices as well. None of this is any sort of new policy by any means.

Nobody brought up the user page as a problem in the discussion that led to the block, and you haven't really indicated which parts of it are a problem now, it seems more like you are concerned that there is not a notice letting everyone know he is blocked. We moved away from doing that in most cases, again, quite some time ago.

There is a gadget in your preferences that will strikeout the usernames of blocked users, and also a script, User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js that shows user rights, account age, block status, and most recent edit. I find both quite helpful for quickly getting a base reading on who I'm talking to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire blob is the problem, such as it were, because the user pages are meant to have a purpose, to help us collaborate (WP:UP), and I don't quite see how an effectively immutable snapshot of a user page of an indefinitely blocked user can achieve such a purpose. But, again, whatever, not a huge deal.

Anyway, why did we move away from notices about user status in most cases quite some time ago, where is that documented?

I actually notice when someone is blocked in the user popups, so I myself don't have a problem noticing this, it's the other readers and editors who might not have that. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS request

I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way about blanking the user page. However, I am puzzled by your removing of talk page access. I can see no reason at all for doing that. The blocking policy says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring"; none of that comes anywhere near to applying in this case. The reason you gave on the user talk page was "While we do allow blocked users some latitude on their own talk page, just coming by to delete things off your talk page without even attempting to get unblocked over such a long period of time just seems unproductive and frankly, unhealthy". "Just seems unproductive"? Maybe, but so what? Is it disrupting the project? Is it offensive? "Just seems ... unhealthy"? I find it difficult to see this as meaning any more than that you personally don't like it. Why should your opinions as to what is or is not healthy be imposed on an editor? Both your message on that user's talk page and your message above refer to the fact that he has not requested an unblock; well, now he has, at UTRS. Is there any good policy-compliant reason why talk page access should not be restored? JBW (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a detailed note on the UTRS request just now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarity's sake, see also the above section titled "Could Greg page be blanked too?" regarding the blanking issue. This is why it concerned me as setting a precedent. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

Hi, could you delete this revision, it contains a phone number. Thanks. [4] Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)

Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]