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 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

please stay in the top three tiers

XFD backlog

V	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	0	0	18	0	18
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	43	0	43
RfD	0	0	77	0	77
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 20 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 62 sockpuppet investigations
• 36 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 84 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 29 requested closures
• 17 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 24 Copyright problems

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

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
Palestine-Israel articles 5	23 Jan 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Arbitration enforcement	none	none	5 February 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

−

Deletion review for Guite people

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guite people. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please undo

Hi, Zaphod, how are you! Sorry, but I believe this to have been a mistake and would be grateful if you'd consider undoing it. I'm still trying to establish (in dilatory mode) whether a CCI is going to be necessary for this user, who has clocked up a good number of violations of our copyright policy. Here's a further example, will blank and list in a moment.

Not sure why you thought I might not wish to be consulted about the unblock in the normal way. Had you done so, I'd have said there's no possible benefit in unblocking a user with an imperfect grasp of copyright policy, and considerable scope for harm to the project – the CCI backlog counter hasn't been updated for a while, but last time I looked was at about 78000 pages. There's just a tiny handful of people working on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a de facto part of reviewing unblock requests. (in fact, unrelated to this specific situation, I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here) , I'll do it when something is unclear to me, I don't feel I'm seeing the context, etc, but this was a fairly straightforward COPYVIO block. I don't mean to imply in any way that it was wrong or unjustified, it looks like a good block to me.

However, it appears to me that the user simply did not understand exactly how copyright works, and how seriously it is taken on Wikipedia. This is one of several areas where Wikipedia's rules and expectations are considerably stricter than most of the rest of the modern internet, so I believe if a relatively new user makes a reasonable claim that they now understand the situation, a second chance is warranted, even if they have made rather egregious errors in the past.

I think we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block, and explains clearly how they intend to do that.

While I can understand your reservations about it, imperfect grasp of copyright policy probably applies to a great many users. Some aspects of how copyright works are very straightforward, others have substantial grey area. I certainly can't claim to have a perfect understanding of it. I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around "a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work" and this user is indicating they now have at least that level of understanding. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi both, I've referred this to ANI at WP:ANI#Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, disappointing... Our policy is crystal-clear: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter". You're welcome to disagree with that of course, and welcome to try to change it if you wish, but for as long as you're an administrator you're expected to adhere to it. And if you don't like the policy, do it because it's just ordinary good manners.

I have some limited sympathy for your second-chance crusade; as you surely know, we have a useful template for just that purpose.

Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention back to that user, now CU-blocked for further socking. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: How is it not a "significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking" when a user blocked for [disruption] caused by their ignorance of [policy] familiarizes themselves with [policy], apologizes for [disruption] and promises to stop [disruption]? I'm very confused. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unrelated to the Aguahrz case: Beeblebrox, you said I was pondering a draft of a policy change to remove or alter language to that effect in the blocking policy at the exact moment you posted your concerns here. That would be a welcome improvement. A significant amount of admins consider unblocks to be, to some extent, a reversal of the original admin's block. In my view, any legitimate unblock request will come with new information or developments, even just the passage of time and an undertaking not to repeat the conduct. It follows that considering the request is looking at a fresh situation with new considerations, not the same situation the admin before was looking at. Policy should make clear that admins don't own the unrelated situation just because the same user is involved. Clearly the question is one of degree, and unblocking just because the original block was bad is another case and likely an admin action reversal. arcticocean ■ 11:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: That's exactly the case I seem to have tried and failed to make. Nine times out of ten, I can see the reasons for a block, and don't disagree. If that all seems in order to me it seems odd that the blocking admin needs to be consulted when what is being evaluated is not the block itself, but rather the quality and sincerity of the unblock requests.

I will ask questions when when I have an actual question to ask, but I've never understood why we should be mandated to ask when we have no actual questions. The main reason that many have expressed is courtesy to the blocking admin, but that only makes sense if you are overturning their decision. With the exception of obvious errors we usually should give them a chance to explain themselves first, but it does not add up when all you are contemplating is giving the blocked user a second chance.

Unfortunately if I were to propose this right now, I anticipate a substantial percentage of users would see it as a sort of "sour grapes" proposal no matter how carefully I explain that I was contemplating it before the current ANI thread, so it will need to wait unless somebody else wants to write it up. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have some thoughts on the ANI thread and you comment on unblocks at Wpo that I’d like to add here once I’m done with the current Arb case. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's a bear of a case.Looks like it's inching towards a result though. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not too bad, I feel like HJP was worse, even though there was a lot less to vote on. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

RE: Deletion decision of Wednesday 13

I would like to challenge the decision to redirect Skeletons. The participation was minimal, and there was no real reasoning as to why an article subject supported by at least four reliable sources, possibly five, isn't notable. The two other participants said they didn't think that was enough, but considering that multiple independent sources discuss the album, I don't see how that's convincing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The closers job is to do their best to read a consensus. Participation was minimal, no argument there, which unfortunately often makes consensus less clear.

This was been open for three weeks, which is generally considered the maximum amount of relisting unless there are exceptional circumstances. The nominator and the one other participant besides yourself agreed on redirecting. In the five days the AFD remained open after that, neither you nor anyone else voiced any sort of objection to the idea. Redirecting in cases of marginal notability is generally considered a good alternative to deletion as it allows the subject to still be covered somewhere, just without a stand-alone article. Any content worth merging can still be pulled out of the page history.

So, I think my close was reasonable and within the bounds of admin discretion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought my keep vote was sufficient, I wasn't aware that I would then have to specifically voice objections to each contrary argument. I've been trying to avoid getting argumentative as I've of late been prone to getting into protracted, repetitive arguments. I definitely do appreciate the redirect rather than a hard delete. I just fail to see what justified it in light of the article meeting GNG standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You say it merits a stand-alone article, two others did not agree. It is not the closers' job to form their own opinion, but to do their best to come to a reasonable close that respects all valid arguments made during the debate. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I was surprised by that outcome, and the other arguments made, given the demonstrated meeting of WP:V. I do appreciate the position you were in of making a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

hello

Hello, Beeblebrox. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Granting extended-confirmed early

Hello. Regarding comments like this at PERM, my understanding based on this 2022 ARCA is that administrators are free to grant extendedconfirmed as they see fit (see discussion at PERM too). If you're nervous about them editing the relevant topic areas, you could grant it on the condition of staying away, I guess.

This isn't specifically about that request, which didn't have much chance of success, but just a general point because I know that you deal with a lot of requests on that page. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I... don't think ARCA is relevant anymore. As is seemingly being established by the committee right now here, the committee is no longer in control in any way of this user right.

That being said, I admit I'm not entirely clear what the deal is with the translation tool, but I assume the community is deliberately restricting it to those that have met the minimum requirements. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry. Nothing's been established at Palestine–Israel articles 5 yet because as of writing this, an outright majority has rejected those changes. As the PD talk page makes clear, the Committee never had control over the user group: it created the 500/30 restriction, the Community created the user group, then the Committee modified the restriction to match the user group because based on a literal interpretation of it, accounts without 500/30 couldn't edit in restricted areas. At Palestine–Israel, we could change the restriction to only allowing page movers to edit in it or whatever, but that wouldn't give us retroactive control over the user group.

I had assumed that your reluctance to grant extended-confirmed early was over the ECR. Maybe I was wrong? For what it's worth, I think that this was a decent example of granting extended-confirmed early: trusted on other projects and not likely to cause trouble over here. I think that the Community would be happy with a globally experienced user with fluent English being allowed access to the translation tool – they can already translate with it to draft/userspace without extended-confirmed, so it's not like extended-confirmed makes a big difference there (see this, which I just created using my alternative account and can easily move into mainspace). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree, but current practice is reflected in the notice at the top of both the confirmed and extended confirmed PERM pages: "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied." That has been the general understanding for some time. If there's any sort of exception for users that want to use the translation tool,I feel that should be made much more clear. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Non-XC editors can still use the content translation tool; the filter in question only prevents publishing your translation directly into mainspace. You can still use it to translate into draftspace or userspace (and there is nothing stopping you from moving it to mainspace afterwards). WP:CXT and WP:X2 have some more details. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not sure this is common enough to formulate another boilerplate response, but this basic level of information is enough to me to suggest that the standard reply should be that you can still use the tool, you just have to submit the result as a draft. I'm guessing that is probably the intent behind this in the first place? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that is the best way to respond; that would be my guess too. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, see my demonstration with my alternative account (linked above). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ugh... failure to read the thread closely enough. Sincere apologies for repeating you. Best HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I view that box as something to dampen expectations rather than a policy prescription. You're right that most administrators probably wouldn't be willing to grant extended-confirmed unless the account was a legitimate alternative account, but there's nothing that says that they can't. It's a bit like self-requested blocks: most administrators don't do them, but some (like you) do them, and that's fine. I can't force you to use your tools in ways that you don't want to, of course , but my point here is that Admins are not really empowered to grant this permission early is not accurate. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Protection conflict

Sorry, I edit conflicted with you when protecting Wikipedia talk:Help desk. I was trying to avoid using 12 hours or 24 hours as that just seemed to easy to game, but may have overshot with 15 hours. Would you prefer it be dialed back? If so, adjust as you see fit. It sucks that it has to be protected at all. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I saw the conflict and thought I had backed out of it, but I'm fine with whatever. I agree that it sucks, this is so tedious. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Beeblebrox. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Thesazh (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thesazh: I'm not really seeing why this needs to be discussed via email as you've already posted the same information when you nominated the article for speedy deletion. The user who declined the tagging posted two links in their edit summary [1] to the other two deletion processes more suited to this type of situation.

Given the level of sourcing and the apparent notability of the subject, I would guess proposed deletion would not succeed as anyone can simply decline that for any reason. That leaves a deletion discussion as your remaining option. I couldn't say for a certainty how that would turn out, there have been some cases where articles on subjects of marginal notability have been deleted at the request of the subject, but it is by no means guaranteed.

However, the biographies of living persons policy is there to protect article subjects and if there is specific content in the article that is problematic, that can be removed through normal editing, and in some cases may be revision deleted. BLPDELETE may be informative in this situation.

I've given the article a quick once-over and I do not see anything currently in it that is PII, however I do think one could argue that the "controversies" section may be giving undue weight to that aspect as it is longer than the section on the entire rest of his career, and I can't help but speculate that that might be the actual issue here? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel

FWIW, the numbers of the discussion were 16 support, 10 oppose, which isn't terribly poor (~62% majority). I felt a few of the opposes were weak and boiled down to "his past actions were harmful!", which he admitted, apologized numerous times for and vowed never to do again. Also, the one support comment you singled out for "[not] telling us much" actually did have a multi-sentence rationale. In the end, I don't see why he couldn't of been unblocked with the requirement that his work be submitted to AFC, given that he had the potential to become an excellent editor in an under-developed area where help is needed (non-English, old sports). Sorry for the rant, I'm just rather frustrated at the loss of his potential contributions, given that he followed WP:SO and I don't think there's much else he could have done in his request... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll grant that I did miss that with the editor I replied to. Often when closing threads, I will read them all the way through, and then kind of skim around taking a second look, and I can only assume that due to the break they put in there, upon a second view I mistakenly thought the content above their "support" was someone else's unsigned comment or something, I'll fix that.

Overall I think this was reasonably close, and as I told them on their talk page I would expect that a future unblock requests reflecting the same behavior as we've seen recently would likely be successful. The arguments that socking was chronic and relatively recent were a well-reasoned objection to some of the arguments to unban. There may have been slightly fewer of them but I feel it was enough to make a reasonable finding of no consensus. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it correct that "no consensus" after a long discussion should default to the block remaining in place? Isn't it equally plausible that an editor should be free to edit unless there's a consensus to maintain a block? (I've been asking this question for about 15 years.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair question, but above my current pay grade.

I keep telling myself I'm never going to try and change a substantive policy again, and then I find myself trying anyway, despite the fact that it has gotten exponentially more difficult in the last decade or so, and it usually doesn't end well. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Dasdipankar2005

You unblocked the above user without consulting with me. I believe this is not the first time you've done this. From your comments, I can see you disagree with the block. That is a good reason for arguing the user should be unblocked but not a good reason for unilaterally unblocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Consulting the blocking admin is not a hard requirement, in particular when there are "significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking" which I believe was reflected in their unblock requests.

Your block was just as "unilateral" as my unblock, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

"Unilateral" meant only that you did it without consulting with me or any other administrator. Your interpretation of "significant change..." is way off base. I didn't expect you to respond to this well. I'll think about whether to take this further, but I don't much care for the inevitable unpleasantness that would ensue if I did. As always, it was lovely talking to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I... don't feel like I'm the one making smarmy sarcastic comments here, I was simply direct in my reply to you, but whatever. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I

guess maybe then you should check to see that User:JayBeeEll and User:XOR'easter aren't meatpuppets. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Um... no? Don't edit war. This is not a complicated concept. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 04:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

recollection

After re-reading all your comments concerning "the great edit war" mfd, it's starting to sound familiar. I feel like I commented on this or something very similar in the past. I looked at nom 1, and I don't see anything - was there another discussion somewhere that you can recall? I'm starting to wonder if this is a re-creation. - jc37 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There was also this RFD but I don't see any comment from you there. This vandalism has been going on for well over a decade, maybe you just reverted some of it at some point. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking.

I'm almost positive it was this, or something very much like it. I remember starting out thinking merge, just like this time, then when we found out more, it became clear that it needed to go.

It was like a "how-to" page on how to vandalize. maybe it was in user space. But anyway, when you said youtube video, that's what made me think of it.

Anyway, I'll go update my comments. Thanks again for looking into this. - jc37 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Harold Ivory Williams Jr.

Good Morning Beeblebrox,

I was wondering if you can tell me how I can improve the page you deleted for Harold Ivory Williams in hopes to relist him and be accepted. What can I do to improve the page? Williamsivy (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Find more significant coverage from reliable sources is about all I can say. A lesser option is to add some properly sourced content to the article on his father and redirect the deleted article there. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fartcoin

EveSturwin has asked for a deletion review of Fartcoin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

New promotion approach

Thought I'd continue this here rather than at UAA (though I am about to walk the dog). But I am a bit curious about the new approach with promotional usernames since I have known that a promotional username combined with a promotional draft has previously bee grounds for an immediate block. I know for promotion of individuals, I usually give three strikes before reporting them as a promotion-only account. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The basic idea is that creating a draft or user page that is promotional is not the same thing as spamming in article space. The idea is to advise them of exactly what the issue is with their username and with their apparent COI and invite them to correct those issues. If they spam in articles, that still gets you a block.

So far, it seems like the results are fairly similar to soft-blocking them. Most of them are not heard from again, a few ignore the concern and keep spamming and get blocked, and there is a small minority that will change their username and try to contribute within policy, and they don't have to be subject to a pop quiz on Wikipedia policy as they might had they been blocked. It's that small minority that makes it worth trying this, in my opinion. It is also possibly helping a little with the backlog at RFU. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I think as long as promotion-only accounts (whether it's blatant WP:NOTHERE or just not getting it) get blocked before becoming autoconfirmed that sounds like a good deal. I do notice that most accounts who do personal self-promotion don't try to recreate a draft slapped with G11. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Chrome Engine AFD closing note

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chrome_Engine: Shortly after I a submitted the AFD, I thought it would have been more optimal to just use WP:PROD. But wasn't the AFD a minimal participation one to actually conclude a redirect properly? And isn't redirect articles virtually the same as deletion in the AFD context? I found the closing comment strange, regards IgelRM (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You are for sure no the only one who has been doing this, so perhaps it has made me a little irritable on the subject, but AFd is for proposing deletion. Redirecting is something anyone can just do as a normal edit. If the redirect is reverted or contested, then it may be time to pursue AFD. Technically, not proposing deletion is grounds for a speedy keep. We get anywhere from fifty to eighty deletion nominations every day and it takes time and effort to deal with them all, so nominations that are not actually advocating deletion and could be resolved by normal editing aren't super helpful. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Please restore the article you deleted

Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted article?

22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) you deleted the page I have created this article. The article was discussed, edited by several users and then approved. However, a fortnight ago (in January this year) the article was removed based on just 2 comments: MCE89 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2025 и Polygnotus (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC). I have not been notified that this article has been nominated for deletion. I believe that the opinions of the above two contributors are biased and misrepresent the real information about the article. Please reinstate this article so that it can be discussed openly. Numen Existence (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a number of questionable/erroneous points in your above statement:

• You were notified 18 days ago, the notification is still on your talk page. Even that is not strictly required, I'm not sure what else you may have been expecting.
• I'm not seeing where you are getting the accusation of bias, the users who commented remarked on the availability of independent reliable sources that had covered the subject, which is exactly what deletion debates are about nearly all of the time.
• So, it was discussed openly, for seven days. Although all the comments were in the first few days, anyone could have commented during that week.
• Your tone makes me question if you may have a conflict of interest regarding this topic.
• The nomination of an article for deletion is a de facto comment in favor of deletion, so there were three editors who all agreed and I can't see what possible other outcome there could have been for the discussion.

Given all of the above, I am not willing to restore it to article space. A proper discussion was had, and the consensus was that article subject was found to not be notable. I would, however, be willing to restore it as a draft if you believe you can correct the issues identified in the deletion discussion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply. This is very professional!

I may not have made my point correctly about not being informed that my article was being nominated for deletion. What I meant was that I saw the post after the article had been deleted and so was unable to take part in the discussion. That is why I asked for access to the article.

I am responding to your assumption. I have no conflict of interest regarding this topic. I found this method (technique) in the public domain and noted its good theoretical validity. I then used it in my practice and saw its relevance. I have not had the opportunity to test the effectiveness of this technique, which is described by the authors in scientific articles. But their mathematical calculations and the scientific peer review of the journals in which it is described seem quite convincing to me.

So I thought this method was remarkable and could be shared on Wikipedia.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a little about the editorial comments that led to the removal of this article.

1. The presence of a preprint among other cited scientific articles and books does not call this method into question. As far as I know, it is common practice among scientific journals to publish the preprint first, and the final version of the paper after the manuscript has been peer-reviewed. Experienced Wikipedia editors should be aware of this and take it into account.

2. This article is not an advertisement, as no one stands to gain financially or otherwise from its inclusion on Wikipedia. The only benefit from their publication can be derived by the reader, as such techniques are usually pay-per-use.

3. It is up to experts in the field to judge the importance of a topic. For example, I wrote this article about a subject on which I have a Doctorate in Psychology. I find this article notable, if only because it is the first Wikipedia article to reveal one of the latest trends in the field of practical psychology – the psychological transformation games.

So I do not have any personal interest and I do not care whether it is put back in the article section or not. But I am sorry for the time that I, the panellists and the editor have spent writing and improving this article.

I think this will be the last article I write for Wikipedia.

Thank you again for your time and attention to my message. Numen Existence (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It is up to experts in the field to judge the importance of a topic. This would appear to be the core misunderstanding here. That is absolutely not how Wikipedia works. All Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on what sources have already reported on a subject. There is no requirement to be an expert and no authority derived from claiming to be one. Notability, as defined on Wikipedia, is based entirely on whether or not there is significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. Similarly it is the first Wikipedia article to reveal one of the latest trends in the field of practical psychology is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is explicitly not the place to "raise the profile" of anything. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin Hadasa Kelly

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've closed your Tamzin Hadasa Kelly RFD nomination and started a new one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Tamzin Hadasa Kelly. You accidentally misread its target as a project page, but it's an encyclopedia article about Wikipedia administrators — and several of the participants misunderstood it the same way — so I figured it was best to WP:TNT the nomination. I'll notify everyone else who participated, so I hope everyone will come back and re-participate. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh. that does slightly change the math, I had no idea we had an article about admins. Your action seems reasonable to me given the flawed nomination. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I figure we have to discount flawed votes somewhat, but figuring out which ones were flawed would be complicated (especially because of the influence of the nomination statement), and since it was obviously a good-faith goof on everyone's part, simply declaring a mistrial was the easiest way to avoid complicated DRV appeals. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Time to end it

Hello.

You have written: 21:21, 26 January 2025 Beeblebrox talk contribs blocked ErrorCorrection1 talk contribs from the page 2025 Canadian federal election with an expiration time of indefinite (edit warring/disruptive editing Any admin is free to unblock if/when the election date is firmed up and/or this user shows a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making)

I, hereby, have a willingness to respect consensus-based decision making. Therefore, please remove this block.

As a side note, I have intentionally waited about 7-9 days to request this in order to step away from Wikipedia for a time then re-enter Wikipedia for a time, but not that article. This demonstrates restraint and trustworthiness.

Furthermore, while there are factors that may be discussed, I intentionally do not include it in this request unless you require it. Those factors include, but are not limited to, fact specific events of the time, other unsavory editors' behaviour, and that I actually stopped editing the disputed lede several days BEFORE the partial block.

Thank you in advance for your offer, which I am requesting be fulfilled by you. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If this were an normal unblock requests I would decline it. Just saying you have a new willingness to respect consensus is easy, showing that it is the truth requires a bit more effort, an effort you have not yet made. As I mentioned at ANI, the attitude you were displaying at that time nearly led me to issue a full block. Two talk page edits is not enough to establish that anything has actually changed.

You are only blocked from one page out of 6,949,587, and you say you don't want to edit that one page, so I see no reason to lift the p-block until you have established a record of non-disruptive editing elsewhere on the project.

Once you believe you have done that, please use the normal unblock appeal process on your talk page to make another request. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Your statement is incorrect. I do want to edit that one page so there is reason to lift the p-block. When it is lifted, any edit will be carefully thought out and explanations to why it is important for the gist of the article. This exceeds the thoughtfulness of many edits that I see.

I am unfamiliar with the "normal unblock appeal process". Does that mean that your initial offer is reneged? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't know exactly what you meant by re-enter Wikipedia for a time, but not that article.

I am not revoking the statement I left in the block log: "Any admin is free to unblock if/when the election date is firmed up and/or this user shows a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making" is still exactly how I feel about it, I'm just not convinced you have actually shown anything of the sort as of right now. How to appeal the block is explained in the block notice. Another admin will review any request you may make and can act as they see fit. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What I meant was that I was not fixated with that article so after a several day break from Wikipedia entirely, I came back but did not even look at that article.

You are experienced in Wikipedia enough to know that administrators rarely unblock others without the consent of the blocking administrator so it may make the original administrator feel better by saying "get another person to do it", knowing full well that such thing is not part of Wikipedia culture and likely will not happen.

I also might add that punishment in the form of blocking is forbidden in Wikipedia. Blocking is meant to prevent disruption. A good sign is when a user, like me, does not become angry but reasonably discusses something. In you unblock me now, I will voluntarily not even look at that page for another 48 or more hours. I also am cognizant that good behaviour enhances your reputation (and bad behaviour does not) so I will make extra effort not to embarrass you. I do not believe other blocked editors ever make that pledge to help out the administrator's reputation. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

My pre-consent is clearly stated in the block log. If that's not sufficient, feel free to point to this very discussion in your unblock request.

I'm not worried about damaging my reputation by unblocking you, I've been accused of being reckless with unblocking more than once and I'm still here, my concern is that you are basically asking for an instant unblock based on you going away for over a week.

Now, I will grant that this was a wise thing to do. You were obviously very agitated during the incident that led to the block and walking away when it was issued actually surprised me, as I assumed you'd throw a fit, and it is to your credit that you did not. However, I don't think instantly removing the block based solely on that is a good idea, I think most admins would agree with me that more calm and positive contributions outside of this topic area would be far more compelling than the above appeal. I would add that you are blocked from the article itself, I believe you could still use edit requests to suggest changes on the talk page. Seeing a few of those accepted would also make a compelling case for a future unblock request. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a couple days, and would like to point out that my request was to block them from the article and its talk page, since they were being disruptive on both, although I see that you did only block them from the article. I also read from their statements here more of the same attitude they showed on the talk page: they're not here to inquire about or discuss the block with you, they're here telling you that they've decided they've been blocked long enough and how dare you not follow their orders immediately? I had already pointed out that their "haven't edited the lede in five days" statement is disingenuous, as they added the exact same content that they were trying to add to the lede to a different part of the article on the same day as the block, again contrary to discussion; it was the edit that led me to file the ANI report. Their text here is also laden with more personal attacks: referring to "other unsavory editors' behaviour" (clearly myself and GoodDay); "this exceeds the thoughtfulness of many edits that I see"; and also their threat to embarrass you. This doesn't show a willingness to collaborate and respect consensus or other editors at all, and is strong evidence of a battleground mentality not compatible with a collaborative project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Read over EC's posts here, too. PS - He needs to learn how to indent his posts, properly. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm just here to say that I'm glad this discussion isn't as dire as it appeared when the section heading popped up on my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I was alarmed when I saw this section title, but it wasn't at all what it appeared. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That one got me, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

King Solomon (inaccurate depictions)

Thank you kindly for the unblock. For reference, the primary source, Russian Icons, even has its own Wikipedia page. I provided empirical evidence to support my reason for updating the photo for Solomon. It can be found here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:King-Solomon-Russian-icon.jpg

Do I have permission to upload without being blocked? I have created a discussion on this on the user talk page, "Jfire." They are looking into this as well. Thank you very much for the unblock. Aenth (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any special authority in the underlying content dispute. I see you are discussing it o n the talk page, hopefully a consensus will become clear there, that is how decisions are made on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: edit warring

Thank you for making clear that the other editor was edit-warring. S/he is acting like s/he was not. I don't know if I would agree with your assessment that I was "lucky". If the other editor was blocked, I think that means someone else's correction to the controversial wording would stay, which I think would make the article more helpful, which is all I was really hoping for.

You are mistaken in suggesting that I was asking for a direct intervention in a content dispute. I was asking for what is (generally) allowed in articles about contentious topics.

Maybe I can ask you directly, too: If someone makes a controversial change, without prior consensus, to an article about a contentious topic, what would be an appropriate response?

• Remove the change until there is consensus about it?
• Modify the change to make it less/not controversial, and hold that modification until there is consensus for something better?

(If neither of those are allowed, then I think anyone can make any controversial change, without consensus, and then not let anyone else correct their controversial change.)

I do appreciate you giving me the heads up about WP:AE.

I understand that you would prefer that I made this comment where you wrote your comment, but I do not like to clutter up my own talk page. I still wanted to respond to you, though. I hope that makes sense.

HalfDome (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like you aren't quite getting the message here, the message being don't edit war, ever, anywhere. You both could have been blocked for what you were doing. Edit warring is always wrong, the correctness of your editorial position is irrelevant.

To answer your question, if you feel a change is controversial, reverting it once is acceptable, even if it involves a contentious topic. If the edit is restored, discussion is the next step. Asking the other editor via edit summary to open a discussion is not an acceptable substitute, CTOP or not. The current full protection is there to stop the edit war and give you and the other editor a chance to discuss it on the talk page. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

So it sounds like you are saying that someone can revert a change once, but then also that revert can be reverted (i.e. restored). And, I am guessing then that it would not be considered an edit war unless there was a third revert. Is that correct?

Following what I just wrote on the 'Arbitration Committee/Clerks' page, I think the following would be okay:

• Bold initial change → Bold fixes to try to correct any issues with the initial change → maybe the fixes get reverted → the fixes can be restored (i.e. their removal reverted) → if the fixes are reverted again, then the user who did that is considered to be edit-warring (and I can report them)

That is different than what I concluded on the Clerks page, and is close to what I actually did, except that when the other user did the third revert in the chain, rather than reporting them, I did a fourth revert.

If I am understanding you correctly, I'll do that next time and and report them for edit-warring, but please let me know if I am mistaken.

Thanks. HalfDome (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be making quite an effort to avoid the very idea of actually discussing the situation with the other user, which is what you should at least try to do rather than being in a big hurry to find something to report them for. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)