English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick

English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Administrator review/Beeblebrox

< English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Administrator review
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.

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've been admin for about a year and a half now, and an oversighter for the last few months. Haven't gotten yelled at too much yet, but detailed feedback is always helpful so I'm submitting myself for review. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifically looking for feedback on these issues:
  • Blocks, and handling of unblock requests
  • Page protections
  • Declined speedy deletions
  • I know that last one requires some digging, but it is one of the areas where I seem to draw the most criticism. I'm pretty sure that just goes with the territory as an increasing number of NP patrollers are demanding and impatient, but it has been suggested that I'm being to big of a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


  • I look in on this page frequently, and I always like to say "thank you" to anyone who makes the effort to participate here, so let me start with that. I see you around frequently, although I haven't been directly involved in the three bullet points above, and for that reason, please accept my apologies for not being able to respond with a lot of specific insights to what you asked for here. But I have an overall impression, and I've just spent some time stalking your user talk to see how you responded to people who came there with issues. Bottom line: I think you are doing excellent work, and I think your work is particularly valuable in that you deal with the difficult cases where disruptive users are likely to complain about you. Looking at things where people have recently complained to you at your talk, I keep finding myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with them. Back a ways, I vividly remember a drama-prone individual calling you out by name during the CDA poll, and I file that under "you must be doing something right". In thinking about whether you might have "stickler" tendencies, it does occur to me that you recently "vented" at WT:RFA about "moral support", which struck me as rather Scrooge-like. Nothing really wrong with your opinion, but some users might, AGF-style, want to tell a candidate that, yes, they did this wrong, but they should learn from it and do better; no need for a flogging on top of that. So, my overall opinion is that you might want to make a habit of asking yourself briefly about AGF and IAR before taking an action, but if your judgment then says to go ahead with the block, protection, or decline, you should feel confident doing so, and not feel shaken by the inevitable complainers (one of which is, arguably, directly below --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)). Thanks again for coming here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Addendum: particularly in light of what comes below, I really wish you hadn't started that hypothetical thread about talk pages at WP:AN. Disengaging is a good idea, but calling it "hypothetical" does not constitute disengagement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see now that it was foolishly optimistic of me to expect that everyone would abide by the request to discuss the situation abstractly. I was honestly only looking for guidance on how to handle such a situation in the future should it happen again, I did not and do not have any ntention of ever posting or even looking at the page in question in the future for the reasons stated below. There were a few users who did provide good, purely hypothetical feedback, but I suppose I should have let some time pass and let the issue cool down before posting about it, it was too easy to see what I was really talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The adjectives used by you—"poisonous, nasty, condescending"—to describe the attitude of William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) here constituted a personal attack. This is not how you usually write, so I assume that, in some way that needn't be specified, your account was compromised. Please be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, no, my account was not compromised and I was in full control of my faculties when I wrote that. It is a description of his actions here on Wikipedia. His talk page has become a snake pit, sort of a grim spectator sport of the very worst qualities of Wikipedia, and I am frankly embarrassed that the situation has been allowed to go on for so long. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume you have not followed this drama sufficiently to form an informed opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that directed at me or at Mathsci? I have followed WMCs talk page on and off ever since blocking him as part of an arbitration enforcement action.(a block which was challenged by various parties but ultimately upheld as valid) I would really rather that this discussion not be focused on my limited interactions with WMC. I have taken exactly one administrative action related to him, (I guess two if you count blocking his alt account at the same time). In my year and a half as an admin I have made over 1,400 other blocks, deleted over 4,000 items from Wikipedia, declined several hundred speedy deletion noms, handled hundreds of unblock requests, and protected over 400 pages. This issue is heating back up only because WMC is blocked once again. After my most recent unpleasant encounter where an attempt to reduce potential drama was met with still more condescending insults I can assure I have no desire to re-enter the circus on his talk page and have washed my hands of the matter. I don't really like repeatedly be involved with the same problems if I can avoid it anyway, so it was high time to leave this by the wayside. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just for further background for those who don't know: when ArbCom finally posted their decision in the climate change case, a call went out for more admins to monitor and respond to AE requests. I decided I would try to help out. The first request to come along after I made that decision happened to be one involving WMC. I acted according to what I believe was dictated by policy and the ArbCom decision. Others didn't see it that way, but in the end the block was upheld. I tried to talk to him during the block to make it clear that it was not personal and that if we were to sit down and discuss CC issues we would probably have much in common as far as our actual viewpoint. What I got for my trouble was a series of insults and refactoring of my remarks, labeling them as "twattery." If that isn't nasty and condescending then I guess I don't know what those words mean. Now can we move on to the other several thousand admin actions I have made please? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, you have not followed this drama sufficiently to form an informed opinion. This has been going on a lot longer than the ArbCom case (and ArbCom has not had its best day, either). Now, upholding ArbCom decisions, even fishy ones, is not a problem. But voicing strong opinions on other editors without adequate research is a sign of hasty carelessness, something I do not appreciate in an admin (or any editor). On un unrelated note, your block was upheld on the "no consensus to overturn" principle, not on consensus that this was a good block. Again, not really a problem - we all have good and bad days. But we should try to learn from out bad days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
My opinion of his attitude is based on how he has acted towards me, That is my final statement on thais matter, ever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As a New Page Patroller, I've only come across you a few times in the field to date, and I only had one tag get shot down by you. It seemed like nothing more than a reasonable difference in interpretation of G11, and I think the initial author did a bit of work on it after I tagged it (the article in question, although I can't remember the title now, ended up being redirected because it duplicated something else; another user happened to notice). The others were G3 deletions, if I remember correctly, and they got deleted rather quickly. Although I've grown to learn that patience is a virtue (and also quite elusive, in my case), G3, G10, and G12 tags should be dealt with quickly, and I think you've done a good job. Speaking only for myself, I can definitely get a little overeager, and I can think of a few occasions when letting something sit has given me a chance to go back to an article and reassess it. We've had our recent disagreements at WT:CSD (the recent discussion about G1 and such), but I again think that's mostly a reasonable difference in views. I thought you were a little hard on Timneu22 in one of those conversations (not going into specifics, that's a different conversation), but your overarching point about being sure you were operating within consensus was valid. Tl;dr version; we have slightly different views on a few things in CSD, but I think you approach it the right way and do a good job in CSD work.

In addition, although it's not on the list at the top, I want to say that you've been a much-needed steadying hand at UAA, which I frequent due to my NPP work. You relentlessly nail spammers and role accounts, but you ensure that offensive usernames actually are offensive (we had a hilarious one pop up a few days ago; User:Brian is a naked mole rat got reported as offensive by someone who didn't know what a naked mole rat was). It's good to have someone who's thick-skinned working there, because it seems a lot of the reports are from people who appear to be actively trying to be offended. I know that's not on the list, but I still thought I should mention it because your work there has been very helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Small addendum; I had tagged Kelinik as a test page because it was the user's first edit, it obviously failed WP:NOTDICT among many other issues, and is useless as a redirect. I see where you're coming from in PRODding it, and that G2 is written with something slightly different in mind; however, I thought that it was so obviously non-encyclopedic that it was just a new user trying to see if he could actually create a page. I can think of a few admins who would have deleted it under that criteria, and a few who wouldn't have; I'm not saying you're right or wrong here (as I said above, reasonable people can have different opinions), just to at least consider it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not and do not see how it could be considered a test page. What was being tested? Many users seem to think that is a catch-all criterion for articles that don't fit any of the others. It is not. WP:CSD#Non-criteria specifically states that nominations based on WP:NOT are not valid. It's the very first non-criterion mentioned as a matter of fact. And your comments here show that that was your actual, underlying reason when your stated reason was that it was a test page. I'm not a mind reader but even if I was it would have been out of proper deletion process to speedy delete it for this reason. When at RFA I was grilled again and again on this topic because of fears that I would do exactly what you would have had me do, speedy delete things that are specifically exempted from the criteria. You have explained why you don't like PROD, but the broader community does not agree with you. Admins are expected to follow policy and consensus whether they agree with them or not, and right now both of those say that NOT is not a valid CSD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough; noted for the future. I have started PRODding more things anyways, for the record; not that that's particularly germane here, as my (mis)reading of "test page" is what got me, but I pay attention and try to go accordingly. My larger comments above still stand; as far as I'm concerned, you've been doing a great job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox should change his behavior toward "problem editors" so that he can at least stay on speaking terms with these editors. When Brews Ohare got blocked for a short period after an AE discussion, Beeblebrox showed up there and complained about the block being way too short, that Brews is such a problem edotor etc. etc., even though AFAIK, Beeblebrox was never involved as an editor with Brews. Then, by making such comments, he makes it more difficult to get involved as an Admin with such editors. This has nothing per se to do with being lenient. E.g. Sandstein is not lenient at all, but you won't hear him making comments on problem editors like Beeblebrox has done w.r.t. Brews or WMC. In the latter case, Beeblebrox has even complained about "WMC's fan base", which unecessarily polarizes things here.

So, perhaps getting Beeblebrox and WMC to talk to each other in a normal way would be a good thing. If WMC agrees to let Beeblebrox post on his talk page, I would like to see them discuss issues like his AE block or other aspects of the CC case pragmatically. Obviously, they will not agree on some issues, but that in itself should not be an issue. Count Iblis (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the WMC situation specifically, so far it is the most talked about thing here at my admin review even though my interactions with him represent less than one tenth of one percent of my work here in my time as an admin. I certainly don't see the situation as a defining characteristic of my admin work, seems more like coincidental timing that there is another issue with him right now and I ahpenned to comment on it. All part of the pattern of recentism that so plagues Wikipedia. I also don't like prolonged conflicts, it's good to let the cast change around once in a while, and WMC has made his opinions of me and anything I say or do abundantly clear, making any future conversation difficult to say the least. While I appreciate your intent I'm afraid I must decline, I do not intend to ever interact with WMC again if it can possibly be avoided, it is simply not worth the aggravation I am subject to each and every time I make the slightest comment. I leave it to ArbCom or whoever else wants to deal with the situation in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well rounded admin, I have no issues with any blocks you have made. I thank you for some of those page protections keeps my reverting/watchlist down a bit. In general your work on articles is great even earning a DYK for Tanner crab. You seem very active at ANI and that can only be a good think for the project. I look forward to many more years of interactions with you. ZooPro 14:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you be following this page still Beeblebrox? If yes, I'll leave my comments... Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, still watching, please go ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • excellent admin (Sorry i dont know where this is supposed to go so im just putting this at the bottom.) I am a big fan of you as a sysop; you seem level headed and yet you aren't afraid to show any emotion when merited; you seem like you have an actual social life and I've just always found your judgement superior in disputes and with users in need, from my experience. Tommy! 01:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thumbs up you for your quick and efficient handling af an OTRS/oversight matter! Asav (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit of an upbraiding, I'm afraid

Extended content

I hate to have to say this, but your decline of a block (mine) here was not a good piece of editing, in my opinion.

My basic take on the block itself (which is rather lengthy, I'm afraid) is here. To summarize - and this applies to your review as well as the original block - if I were an admin (and I was at one time) and I came across this block request, I would have

  1. taken 15 seconds to look at the subject's user page, and
  2. said to myself "Well, this is odd, here is a user with such-and-such amount of service and clean block log, what is the deal here?", and
  3. looked into the matter more thoroughly.

And if I didn't have the time to perform step 3, I would have passed on the matter altogether.

I know that you are busy and there's a lot of stress, and I know that we are not bringing in enough new admins, and I don't know what to do about that, but I don't particularly like being collateral damage to this situation.

In addition, this statement: "You absolutely did edit war, both recently and in the long term, on the article in question. 13 reverts altogether with 4 in the last few days alone." May I point out something. First of all, this is a Bad Image List type image. It's not on the Bad Image List, because (I guess) it hasn't been used for trolling outside the article. But its the type of image that attracts a certain kind of editor. You know what I mean. So here is some of my "edit warring" on this article:

  • Here we have editor 75.88.127.62 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding the image to the article. His second edit ever on Wikipedia is to state that discussion on this subject is to be ended, period. This person's editing history began and ended on May 8, 2010, with a total of nine edits.
  • Here we have editor 24.143.15.253 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding the image to this article. This edit constitutes his entire career at the Wikipedia, so far.
  • Here we have editor 68.34.31.108 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding the image to this article. The entirety of his career here so far (seven edits, all on August 1) consist of re-adding the image or using his deep experience of the Wikipedia to explain why he should be allowed to do so.
  • Here we have Ashemon tag-teaming with 68.34.31.108 to restore the image. Ashemon does have 61 edits, but 57 of them were in 2007-9; this was his first edit in almost a year.
  • here we have User:Redsteakraw adding the image to this article. This was his third (and, so far, final) edit to the Wikipedia.
  • here we have User:72.69.239.204 making his first contribution to the Wikipedia: adding this image. He has one other edit, so far.

There are probably other similar type edits. Some of the reverts to the above edits were not by me (its difficult to sort all this out). However, other edits that I have reverted on the article include:

  • here I reverted an edit by User:205.246.3.2. This was User:205.246.3.2's 35th edit, so he was on his way to establishing himself as an editor. However, his edit was to replace "gokkun titles predominantly involve men ejaculating into a woman's mouth" with "gokkun titles predominantly involve men ejaculating into [redacted]'s mouth", where [redacted] was the name of an individual person. In my opinion this was not a good edit and I was justified in reverting it.
  • here I deleted a long list of items such as "gravy boats... collectable Star Trek plates commemorating the time Kirk fought Spock...Ziplock bags with smiley faces crudely drawn on them in marker... Easter baskets with decorative artificial grass" and so forth from the list of containers used in the genre. This list was added by User:72.216.21.45 as his third (and, so far, final) edit to the Wikipedia. In my opinion this was not a good edit and I was justified in reverting it.

I don't have time now to sort out my entire edit history in the article, and there are instances where I reverted established editors. I think that all or most of these were probably justified, but it's certainly possible that I made mistakes.

Generally, though, I absolutely object to my editing history in this article being used to partially justify blocking (or, in your case, not unblocking) me. If people are going to be thrown to the dogs for this kind of editing, I think that we are going to have a problem.

I don't blame User:Enric Naval. He's got a job to do, as he sees it, and he's going to get it done by whatever means necessary. I do blame you - if we are now going to take edit war reports like Eric Naval's at face value, we do indeed have a problem. This was bad adminning on your part, I have to say. In my opinion, you (and User:Magog the Ogre) have been played like a violin by User:Cyclopia, User:Cptnono, and User:Enric Naval. Does that not make you angry, on some level? It would make me angry.

In addition, while I give you points for being polite, I have to deduct some for the generally condescending attitude. I allow that, to use your words, you are "generally here to help". However, as User:Magog the Ogre said, "everybody makes mistakes".

This was one. Herostratus (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The edits that precipitated the block [1] [2] [3] [4] clearly and unambiguously constitute edit warring. That's what you were blocked for. I merely mentioned the other reverts as they suggest a pattern of trying to own the article and keep the image off of it no matter what. The fact that you are an experienced user and former sysop with a previously clean block log actually makes this worse, clearly you are aware of what edit warring is and that it is not tolerated.
On the other hand, I would welcome any uninvolved party reviewing how I handled this matter and commenting here, that's the point after all. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this is not good. You're busy, and you made a simple mistake. That is OK; who doesn't make mistakes? However, you can't learn from your mistakes if you won't acknowledge them. As to owning the article - do you want to watch these articles? A lot of people don't - it's unpleasing subject matter, and it's depressing dealing with these editors. I hate doing it.

But whatever. Help me out here. Let's turn this into a teaching moment. Help me to be a better editor. Let's work through this together, OK? Since this is very important to me, I trust you'll help me out here. Maybe we'll both learn something. You never know.

Keeping in mind that the article had not displayed an image for at least many months, and there was an open RfC on adding a particular image (or, if one considers the RfC to have expired, it had expired with no consensus and no new threads on the talk page).

Editor User:Valknuter adds the image with with an edit summary of "Image adds to article". (FWIW this is very contentious issue and this was his 14th edit on the Wikipedia.)

  • My first question is: Was this a good edit? Is User:Valknuter to be commended for acting boldly to improve the Wikipedia?

Not counting an intervening technical edit, the next edit was my reversion of User:Valknuter's edit here, with an edit summary of "No consensus to restore image". This is the first instance of edit warring on my part, if I understand you correctly.

  • My second question is: What should I have done differently, instead of this edit? Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You've been a Wikipedia user for nearly six years, and apparently were an administrator yourself at one point, and you are asking me to explain to you what you are supposed to do instead of edit warring? You're right about one thing, this is not good, but I will endeavor to explain it. You yourself have repeatedly stated that there was no consensus. You can't have it both ways, if there was no consensus then there was no consensus for any particular course of action. Claiming that the temporary absence of the image constitutes some sort of unassailable mandate to leave it off is specious. Even if you did have a consensus not to use the image, consensus is not a free pass to edit warring. Whether it was a "good" edit or not is not something that is considered when reviewing cases of edit warring. If it is not blatant vandalism then as far as the edit warring policy is concerned all edits are equal. Asking for discussion in your edit summaries while continuing to edit war doesn't cut it either. If you find yourself being repeatedly reverted you are supposed to stop making the edit that keeps getting reverted and discuss the matter with the other users. It was my job to review whether or not you were edit warring, as that and only that is what you were blocked for. You undeniably were and even now you are persistently trying to justify it instead of admitting that you already knew edit warring is not tolerated. Asking for page protection and pursuing further forms of dispute resolution is what you were supposed to do and I have a hard time believing that you didn't already know that.It looks to me like this may be more about bruising your ego by soiling your previously clean block log. You have no one to blame but yourself for that. In this instance I didn't make a mistake, you did, and you are the one who needs to acknowledge it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, well, fair enough. It'd be useful and instructive to walk through the situation edit by edit, but it's time consuming and if you do don't want to do that, I can't make you. I sense a hardening of attitude here - I think I'm right, you think you're right, and who really knows? I could discuss and perhaps refute a lot of what you wrote, but whatever. Time to move on.

I would leave you with this thought: you are not a BlockBot (or in this case a DenyBot). Simply making a mechanical count of revisions doesn't necessarily tell you that much about what is going on. Granted it's quicker. And maybe there isn't time for anything else. If that's the case, there's probably something wrong with the entire system of preventing edit warring, but that's beyond the scope of this post.

For my own elucidation and to find out what, exactly, went wrong, I will write up edit-by-edit analysis of what happened. and I'll post a link to it here in case you're interested. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You still don't know what went wrong? Disagreeing with the policy on edit warring does not exempt you from it. I certainly don't see any point in going over it edit by edit unless you can explain clearly why an exemption to the edit warring policy was warranted, something you have not managed to do despite writing paragraph after pargraph of analysis already. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not stale yet, still looking into it. I hear what you are saying, but there are a lot of policies here, and sometimes they are in conflict - in this case, WP:3RR versus WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GAME. In my opinion, WP:CONSENSUS is pretty close to a core policy, while WP:3RR is a technical policy designed to make things run smoother, so there's that. If WP:3RR is intended to be read as "If two editors are in conflict with one editor, the two editors can take turns making reverts such that neither of them commits three reverts in 24 hours, and this is OK". then fine. But it's not. Anyway, don't worry about it; don't mean to further bother you, and I'll let you know if or when anything else comes up. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the above, and in my opinion, Beeblebrox did nothing wrong; it makes no difference what anyone else did - WP:NOTTHEM - Herostratus had ample time to simply stop edit-warring.

The RFC on the article talk has just concluded that the image should be kept. Herostratus needs to accept consensus, and indeed understand it properly. I see no contradiction in the policies. Note that WP:GAME is a guideline, not a policy. But regardless of all this meta-discussion about policies and guidelines...it makes no difference. Regardless of what others did, Herostratus breached rules, was warned, had a history of edit-warring, so the block was absolutely valid. Herostratus seems to be Wikilawyering, e.g. "I don't think essays are supposed to be used to justify blocks" - policies and guidelines are only there to help us decide how best to make Wikipedia better, so instead of trying to find some bit of policy that recommends not using an essay-link, Herostratus should assume good faith on the part of the blocking admin, and treat the mentioned essay as a friendly attempt to give advice on the situation.

Anyway - this is a review of Beeblebrox, and I don't see any problems with xis actions in this matter.  Chzz  ►  18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed an AfD based on numbers not reasoning.

That is a big failure in my opinion. Rich Farmbrough, 08:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

For those of you who would like to actually know what Rich is talking about, it's this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966). Uninvolved opinions on this more than welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declines checked

Had a look through your speedy-declines, for this year (well, actually one is Dec '10). The list isn't necessarily comprehensive; I may well have missed some.

checkY Clearly, it had context.
checkY Agreed, I wouldn't speedy that. I would, however, try and fix it, speak with the user, and prob post on WP:CVG to try and get in improved; get a lede, and so on. But as far as speedy-decline goes - yep, sure. Using
{{dynamic list}} made sense. Just a shame the article is still so bad.
checkY Of course - infobox with non-trivial content. However I don't like your use of the word 'stupidly' - I know you're talking about the rule, but it'd be a bit confusing to a new user, seeing stupidly, an infobox with any content is considered enough to avoid this WP:CSD. Sorry, but must decline as edit sum. It'd be better to avoid that kind of commentry. I do agree with the PROD though - it'd had enough time. Of course, since, it's been fixed. What I'd like to have seen, though, was if you'd removed the speedy template from the user talk page, and explained to them a bit about the need for references, and told them about user-space drafts. (It's fairly natural to a new user, to start an article like that, and only add to it later; and if we don't explain why it's wrong, they just get nasty warnings, and can be put off. They appeared to be acting in good faith. I note, their only other edit was this - so if they'd learned about refs, maybe they'd have understood better. And even just a friendly note might, sometimes, make a user more inclined to stay with Wikipedia. JSKRA (talk · contribs) - if you look at their talk, even with the 'welcome', a CSD warning and a PROD warning isn't very welcoming.
checkY Nice catch, finding what AAA was. Clearly though, it wasn't a "no context" - so you were right, regardless of that. It's still pretty shit though, so personally I'd revisit that one - look for refs, and if there are none, PROD. But I'd have a particularly good look for some, and maybe ask on the Mexico project or something - I like to try extra-hard for anything like that, simply to try and balance out Systemic bias.
checkY Excellent catch. Nicely done. And you found the other article too - great. And you seem to be right that Come Fly with Me (2010 TV series) is a "curious title". I imagine they copied the style from e.g. Come Fly with Me (song) which is correct, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Capitalization. But, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) doesn't say anything like that, and the examples seem to imply that we use the standard from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)...so it'd be just Come fly with me (It is acceptable to create two articles (on different topics) with titles that differ only in capitalization (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Page names that only differ by capitalization), and concise titles are generally preferred Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Or, if necessary, Come fly with me (TV Series) (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) again).
However, Wikipedia:FA#Media for TV series does seem to use the "music" style caps – we have Only Fools and Horses and Our Friends in the North. So maybe it is right.
(sorry about that; that was a hopeless bit of side-tracking)
checkY Yes, preferable to remove the spam, make it a stub, and to tag unref'd. Again, I think it would be nice to go to Jadenskar (talk · contribs) and maybe remove the CSD template, and try to explain to them a little.
checkY Yes, another decent rescue-job (despite my hatred of 'spam'). You could've put the external links at the end, swapping them and refs. Nice to notice you kept an eye on it, too [13].
checkY Yes, great that you removed the phone number. I actually agree with your PROD too; I don't like this "assumed notability" stuff. It gets ridiculous; if I start "Chzz's School of Sausage Making" for 2 friends, in my kitchen, can I haz artikel? Meh.
checkY Yes; no-content when taggged [16] but you rightly declined because it'd been added when you got there. (Some kinda histmerge happened too, but that's beside the point)
checkY Fine. I could argue a case for speedy as A7 and then making a redirect - but, it's no big thing. It might be worth someone looking at Lucas.tej (talk · contribs) and trying to correct their approach; they're making lots of similar articles (140 of them), and don't seem to quite get it.
checkY Yes - not blatant spam. Could maybe be PROD now (if nothing in Google). Might've been nice to try talking to the user.
checkY Yes, you were right to decline the CSD. I suggest, in such cases, you might put something in the edit sum about, "No opinion about possible PROD or AfD. That article is pretty grim. I have a sneaking suspicion about copyvio, but can't tell; it's hard when something is so old. AfD might be the way, there. So, yes, your speedy-decline was absolutely fine - but there are so many problems, I suggest doing something a bit further.
checkY Yes, has context. Another horrible article (hard to make sense of it). It has interwiki to ko:강릉 최씨 so an 'expand from other lang' tag might help, or a poke to a project, or something.
checkY Clear context, decline was correct. I'd really like to see someone helping Punjabian93 (talk · contribs) - they didn't even get a 'welcome'. And clearly, they need to learn policies and guidelines a little.

So - I don't see any mistakes in any of the above; considering I checked quite thoroughly, I think you deserve a pat on the back.

A suggestion is, that you might be able to advise the authors a bit more, when you decline, if you have the time to do so.

Hope that helps, keep up the good stuff,  Chzz  ►  17:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I went through all of those myself, and I find myself agreeing with Chzz on every one of them. I'd probably have PRODded Heroes Immortales, but what you did was fine. Especially with school articles- the Longview School article being a prime example- it's better to salvage those unless they're copyvios; there's usually something useful there, and you managed to find it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

[ ] Is the contents of High altitude wind power patents still available? Thanks. How might I have assured to have been notified that a deletion process was underway inorder to participate in the process; thanks. Joefaust (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Insults

When you insult someone, you should at least get their damned name right. Is it really so beneath you to apologize when it is pointed out that you're the one who screwed up? While this incident wasn't an admin action, it reflects poorly on admins in general and makes users questions how well you are able to handle real admin functions. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I insulted you. Normally if you aren't replying to the remark directly above the one you are posting it is common courtesy to indicate as much in some meaningful way, eg "@Uncle Doggie" or "re:Beeblebrox" exactly to prevent this sort of misunderstanding. You explained your rather unconventional not-so-obvious attempt to indicate this by deliberately using the wrong indentation so I saw no reason to comment on it further. I still don't. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Administrator_review/Beeblebrox&oldid=11121595"