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.

tracks of previous discussions

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

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 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	18	23
TfD	0	0	1	8	9
MfD	0	0	1	5	6
FfD	0	0	1	4	5
RfD	0	0	0	94	94
AfD	0	0	0	7	7

−

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

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War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.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!

---

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:

1. 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.
2. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it should have been closed at all, it doesn't seem like there was much of a conclusion to it (and yes sure, you're an admin, but it didn't read like you were advising them as an admin, but instead summarizing it - but maybe that's just me), but if you're going to close it you should at least mention that the OP was page blocked because of their hostile edit summaries? – 2804:F1...EA:6CE2 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're talking about this, that seems like a sperate issue from their .... unlikely accusations. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]