User talk:Bbb23/Archive 21

Vandalism Cleanup

Hello again, I wanted to seek your guidance on what the appropriate course of action is for cleaning up vandalism by sockpuppets on articles, talk pages, etc. I tried looking for the policy but wasn't able to find it. Also, the most recent sock that I have encountered (Bluespeakers) has made allegations against me regarding COI in a frenzy of disruptive posts after the SPI was filed; should I post defending myself there or will the content be removed since he was blocked? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Anastomoses: Generally speaking, you can revert edits made to articles by socks. So, to the extent Bluespeakers made article edits that you think are incorrect, you can revert them with impunity. I noticed the amount of disruption he made to noticeboards, and that's a bit harder. I don't have time to review them all tonight. If you are willing, you can post here a list of things you'd like to see removed, and I'll try to deal with it either tomorrow or Friday at the latest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bluespeakers is not a convicted sockpuppet yet, so please wait until the procedure is ended. The procedure was interrupted. I may revert removals until the procedure is finished. Andries (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Andries: Your concept of "the procedure" is deeply flawed. If you revert another editor's reversion of one of Bluespeakers's edits, you should do so only if you wish to accept responsibility for the edit yourself, not simply as a reaction to what you perceive as an incorrect block by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the list of major posts by the most recently banned user Bluespeakers (Swamifraud sockpuppet) after the SPI investigation was filed: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Could you please take a look at these? There were several other boards where the sock's posts were reverted by other editors. Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses, thanks for compiling the list. I've removed all the sections except ... Diff #33: I removed Bluespeakers' edits from the section. Diff #34: I reverted the last edits made by Bluespeakers.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trekking through that mess. I will keep the guidelines that you suggested above in mind. Anastomoses (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please unblock user:Bluespeakers?

I think this user made constructive comments. See e.g. here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pramukh_Swami. And I think that you did not follow the right procedure with your block. I suggest that you either wait for the CU result or follow the correct procedure before you block this user. Thanks. Andries (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion would be, that this can be decided once CU completes the investigation. Plus this user was copy pasting same thing, more than enough times, different pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Several users advised him on his talk page to use noticeboards. You cannot blame him or her for following this advice. This user was new to Wikipedia so may be he or she has used the noticeboard not 100% okay for which he or she cannot be reasonably blamed.

What is s/he now blocked for?

Bad use of noticeboards? Then CU is not the right forum.

Sockpuppeting? Then first finish the CU.

Andries (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just making my last message in this regard here, Andries, check now, CU completed the investigation. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

hi thanks for warning. I would be very happy if you could show me what is need to be removed and cited to unsolved the issues in David Cregeen article. Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Emrahzorlu2, pretty much everything needs a reliable source at Wikipedia, particularly for articles about living persons. Thus, for example, I removed the birth date and the birth name from the article because there's no source for it. Also, certain kinds of material cannot be sourced to self-published sources, e.g., Cregeen's website. Mostly, that would include anything that is self-serving. Thus, you cited his website for the award in the infobox. We need a reliable source that isn't Cregeen himself. You could, however, cite to his website if he said his birth name includes the middle name Allen. Read up on WP:BLP and WP:RS. Remember, the article is here not to advertise Cregeen's talents but to recite them in a neutral and detached fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor you warned harassing me on my talk page

May 30 you warned User:Steeletrap to stay off my user page after my complaint Steeletrap kept on posting despite requests. Steeletrap is back harassing me at this diff on my talk page, after harassing me on the same issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute.

User:Specifico who I also have been banned, is back harassing me, after I complained at ANI June 29]. Obviously, if they had a real case they'd take it to ANI or where ever, so I think that this is just their attempt to drive me off the ANI and off of editing in the Austrian economics area. (And right now after a brief venture, I've once again given up on that because of their tendentious editing.) Help appreciated! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, I hope you remember your ruling on the Binksternet issue, where, on what you admitted to be questionable charges of EW, you allowed him to post notices on my page without consequence. In this single post on the talk page, I was responding to a policy violation (PA) made my Carol, in which she repeatedly referred to me as "he" or "him" (rather than she or her) despite the fact that -- as diffs demonstrate -- she clearly knows I identify as a trans female. For instance, a few weeks ago, in response to my self-identification as a woman, she linked to a page that says transgender people aren't really women (1).

Realize that this "ban" occurred months ago, and I (and I think SPECIFICO) have refrained from posting everything but ANI notices in that time (the exception here was due to a policy violation). Realize also that when she posted her reminder of the ban, we stopped commenting.

The fact that over the course of 5 months, I have not commented once on CarolMooredc's page (excluding ANI, RSN and other approved notices), should give you pause as to whether I am committed to "harassing" her on her talk page, or instead was driven to this (exceedingly rare) post by a clear policy violation. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: It's true you made only one post, but when looked at with a longer lens, your post was made after an extended discussion mostly between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc and had an added punch to it because of that. Without looking at the merits of the pronoun brouhaha, I agree with Carol that you should not have posted your comment. You're not welcome on her talk page. If you want to address what you believe to be misconduct, you're going to have to do that somewhere else.

Carol, you said you banned SPECIFICO from your talk page. I don't know anything about that. When did you do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you can reconcile this position -- an a priori rejection of the validity of my posting on her wall (based on her banning me , regardless of the facts -- with your statements in the Binksternet case, where you clearly said (1) it's OK for him to post regarding alleged policy violations. Steeletrap (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you feel Carol has violated policy, you can leave a templated warning on her talk page to that effect, but that should be the end of it. A full-blown discussion of the policy violation does not need to take place on her talk page. In this instance, SPECIFICO had already templated her talk page, so there was no need for you to post there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here where banned Steeletrap, I wrote to SPECIFICO: (I'm not banning Specifico at this point, as he's banned me, though his/her postings are getting quite annoying too.) 15:44, 23 May 2013
• Here on Srich’s talk page in a discussion among us I wrote: User: Specifio, I banned Steeletrap before, not you, even though you banned me way back when, remember? But I decided just to be fair to User: Srich should ban you too - unless you have official notices and for very limited discussion of them, like I just replied to your incivility complaint and mentioned that failure to discuss is edit warring, for which the diff'd evidence grows everyday. 17:40, 21 June 2013
• SPECIFICO then left me four of the six "official" messages I complained about at ANI June 29th. Obviously it would have helped if I had reaffirmed the ban at the ANI. His messages on this topic and his replies to me go well beyond an official notice and are just harassment. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just read what I assume to be quotes above (didn't check the diffs), and I don't interpret any of your comments to be a clear directive to SPECFICO to stay off your talk page. Honestly, I'm having trouble even understanding what you were trying to say (sorry).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The context was Rich had been annoying me and I banned him, so thought should make clear to SPECIFICO he was banned too - obviously doesn't sound too clear! In any case, hopefully the petty harassment at ANI, my talk page and the Rothbard talk page will now stop. User:Carolmooredc 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb Thank you for checking Carolmooredc's quotes so carefully. Sad to say her modus operandi is to make false allegations or provide diffs which do not corroborate her statements. Many editors have failed to check them in the past and have taken her calculated misstatements at face value. I very much regret to say that this is not my personal opinion, but is the consensus of many editors with whom she's interacted on a variety of content areas at WP. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As usual broad negative generalizations without a diff in sight. One diff that wasn't as crystal clear as it should have been when written does not make a modus operandi. User:Carolmooredc 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Happy Halloween! Steeletrap (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Steeletrap, much tastier than listening to sniping. You should all have some brownies and kick back a little. Me I masqueraded as an administrator with a broom, snarly teeth, and a pointed black hat.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting de-sysop'ing

Seeing as you are the clerk for the current arb, and given the fact that I can't desysop myself, which I think is stupid, I request that you do so, if you can, or perhaps contact someone who can. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're asking. Do you want me to recuse myself as a clerk? Did you want to resign your bit? (BTW, Callanecc is the "main" clerk. Assuming I remain on the case, I will be an additional clerk - my first as a new trainee, actually.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to change my user rights to remove adminship, and found I couldn't. I don't know who can, unfortunately, and as a side matter think it kind of stupid that someone can't remove some of their own privileges. I don't see how anything I said would indicate that I sought your recusal, and I regret it if anything I said could be interpreted as such. And sorry for passing the buck as well, btw, but I've said before I don't imagine I will be doing much here in the near future, and I might actually not see the decision when it is made. Of course, theoretically, at this point, I have no objections to waiting for the decision, but I said when I became an admin if any admin saw grounds for me not being one, I would de-sysop myself, which I just found out I can't do. If you do know the appropriate parties to contact to do so, however, I would welcome your doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a bureaucrat can do what you wish. Usually, when an admin wants to resign, they go to WP:BN. However, the arbitration may complicate things. I believe there are rules related to admins who resign during an arbitration involving them. I'm not sure where best to advise you to go. I wouldn't want you to do anything before you're fully informed of the consequences. I'll see what I can find out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: It saddens me that you have chosen to resign the tools, but I know where it comes from. @Bbb23: What John Carter did is technically called a resignation under a cloud, although no desysop remedy has been proposed, which gives me the impression that unless ArbCom specifically adds a new remedy about his resignation, John will be able to request the tools back if he ever wishes to. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, he won't request them back. The only reason he ever requested them in the first place was to edit protected project banners, and at this point that seems to be easy enough that I can request someone else to do so, if the need arises. And, honestly, I don't imagine I myself will be spending much time on this particular entity much in the future anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected project banners? You could probably do that with just the (newly-created) template editor right, so you wouldn't even need admin for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AE

I'm confused why you are posting to the ARBCOM Proposed decisions instead of Callanecc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: Bbb23 is a new clerk and has been entitled as secondary clerk of that case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ΛΧΣ, I just read the message (above). The header information should probably be altered on the Main Page and the Proposed Decisions Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the collateral benefits of becoming a clerk (trainee) is other clerks, even temporarily inactive ones like Hahc21, help me out on my talk page. Now, in response to your point, Liz, I want to change the header but can't figure out how. :-( I shot an e-mail to Callanecc on that issue, but they're probably sleeping (occasionally we get to do that).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me take care of that too :] — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, very kind of you, but I'd prefer instructions on how to do it if that's not too much trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Everything that appears on top of the arbitration pages is on the {{Casenav}} template. The information that appears on that template is taken from this other template: {{Casenav/data}}. So, I just edited the latter and added you on the parameter list for the Ebionites case. If you click edit on that template, you will see that I mean. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, I knew about the two templates, but I assumed wrongly that there had to be something else out there that connected the parameters to a particular case. If I had just edited the damned data template and looked at it, it would have been obvious. Sigh. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It happens :) You're welcome. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Bbb23...being one of the busier Admins just left you with too much free time? You took on being a Clerk, too? ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, another example (see above) of not being very bright. You have no idea how long it took me to do the implementation notes on the proposed decision page this morning. My head hurts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, Bbb. The Implementation notes are always a pain to make :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MRM - possible 1RR violation?

Hi Bbb23, please take a look at the two reverts by InTheTrees (talk · contribs) in men's rights movement: [9] and [10]. I notified him of the article probation on October 27 [11]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at it before you posted your message here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That notice (and discussion) and a request

Hello: Forgive me for being a little frustrated. I hope you know that the notice I got from Mark Arsten was posted because I had closed a third discussion on issues already under discussion on two other notice boards. But here are the results of that notice (not in chronological order):

• [12] Steeletrap mentions
• [13] Sitush mentions, quoting Specifico. (I'm not clear why Sitshi posted this. It seems to be a rebuttal to Specifico.)
• [14] Specifico mentions that Steeletrap had pointed out the notice
• [15] Specifico says "Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far."

None of these had any relevance to the topics at hand, e.g., a topic ban for MilesMoney or the editing taking place on Robert P. Murphy. But I hope you see how the notice is being misused. I'm going to post a copy of this message with Mark as well. I ask both of you – can anything be done? I prefer and ask that the "notice" be removed. It has served its purpose with me (about the hatting the discussion), but it is being misused by others. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to interfere in Mark Arsten's action. The continuing drama at these pages is not healthy for the articles or for the editors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I quite agree about the drama. Jeez, I try to keep a section heading neutral and a storm ensues. Indeed, I made a single edit on the heading and I'm the one accused of EW. (Thanks again for letting me vent a bit.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Can we please restore this page? It's an important part of a larger picture of the NHS. I am quite ready to demonstrate its noteability.

see NHS mental health trust

• I'd support this request: it's one of a large number of stubs which this editor has created, and they are being improved as we go along - see discussions at User_talk:Rathfelder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. It doesn't look as if the editor (or his talk page stalkers!) was alerted to the speedy deletion nomination of this article. One or other of us would have leapt to its defence. PamD 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it wouldn't have changed my decision. I can't restore an article that says nothing to establish significance ("We are a organization. We do x." and a link to the website). If you want to create articles that will withstand A7s, then do so out of article space first and then move them if you believe you've succeeded. The standard for AfD, btw, is different from the standard for A7. I hate to disagree with a librarian (I think librarians are presumptively outstanding people :-) ), but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)I have no idea what this article was about but perhaps it could be userfied for now with the provision that it isn't moved back into article space until it's expanded appropriately. Just a thought. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't refuse to do that if requested, but it's hardly worth the effort as the article was so tiny. I can't imagine it couldn't easily be recreated without my help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about behavior on sanctioned article.

Starting with this edit, which referred to the discussion as "rubbish", Sitush has become increasingly uncivil, to the point that he appears to be baiting me or trying to intimidate me, or perhaps both. I've managed to remain polite, but when I pointed out that he was being uncivil, he responded with more incivility; "bollocks". He then assumed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, daring me to report him while leaving "I don't care" as the edit comment. I ignored this.

I've tried to refocus him on the specific policy issue while deescalating, but I find that he's successfully derailed the discussion with his hostile behavior. After he made some incorrect statements about the nature of academic tenure, another editor tried to rein him in, but was met with the same sort of stubborn incivility. At this point, I'm not sure how to proceed. I thought that, when an article is under sanctions, editors are compelled to be on their best behavior, but I can't imagine that this is what Sitush's best behavior looks like. I'm asking that you caution him about his attitude and incivility. MilesMoney (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take the first diff you have (rubbish). Just before Sitush made that comment, you provoked him with: "Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not run on how things look to you. There is no policy about writing with hats; you made it up just now. It's a hoop you'd like us to jump through, but this isn't a circus and you're not the ringmaster. We have to follow what policy says, not your unique interpretation of it. Please frame your arguments in terms of policy, not your desires." I think his response was mild.

In your second diff, you complained about his "rubbish" comment (not as provocative as your first diff), and he said "bollocks". Since when is the word "bollocks" a big deal?

I don't find your third diff compelling, either. At that point the two of you were going nowhere, and it was pointless to pursue it. You may not like his response, but essentially he said he didn't want to talk with you about it anymore because he felt that editors were using civility inconsistently (what a surprise) depending on the discussion.

Bottom line. I see nothing to warn Sitush about. Just because the article is now subject to sanctions doesn't mean that suddenly everyone involved are going to behave like model Wikicitizens, whatever that is. Given all the complaints I've had from the different editors, you're all arguing constantly. So, if you want to continue your involvement in these discussions, my suggestion is you ignore all comments you perceive to be uncivil and keep your comments focused on content (none of this circus/ringmaster stuff, for example).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was very curious to know whether you'd enforce sanctions in a clear-cut case of incivility or just make excuses for the guilty party. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity; I won't be bothering you again. MilesMoney (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This will be my only comment in this thread - no need for a response. I've had enough of the TE and the repeated demeanings etc, of which recent comments at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and in their last reply above are just a sample. If Miles survives the topic ban review that @BD2412: has been asked to look at then I'll be inclined to go straight back at ANI with another report. Doubtless, like me, the regulars at ANI don't want another drawn-out saga on the same theme but right now editing in the India caste-related sphere is a doddle by comparison, and that's saying something! - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't stop you from going back to WP:ANI, but nothing will stop that from WP:BOOMERANGing, given what you've posted on my talk page. I assure you that I will ask for you to be banned on the basis of your constant attacks against me. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as you're using my talk page for this stuff, Sitush hasn't posted on your talk page since October 21 when you banned him. And, frankly, those posts (which are harsher than the ones on the article talk page) and the ones you've pointed out in this thread are not likely to get Sitush banned. I can see you're having problems with your perspective, but you won't help yourself by making such a request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

He avoided my talk page but stalked me to articles on topics he never touched before and knows nothing about. He then joined in on the illegitimate ANI report that many have called a lynch mob, and has since threatened me repeatedly. But, hey, boys will be boys, right? Why apply the same standards to Sitush that you would apply to anyone else? MilesMoney (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Overwerk

Has been recreated again....William 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School GS

Would it be possible to include information about what the general sanctions are at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions? I mean information like that which exists at Template:Austrian economics enforcement...it seems like the main sanctions page should include more specific information on a) what actions/behavior could result in a sanction and b) what form the sanctions take (I suppose this is blocks of different durations). It seems that different Editors will be referred to this page and I think it could be clearer about what to do to avoid being sanctioned.

I saw that SRich edited this page but I'm reluctant to involve myself in what seems like clear Admin-business. You were the primary author so I thought I should come to you. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also an editor was confused and thought he could post notices, so it needs to specifically say that only admins can. Two of us have told him that; don't know if he's read it yet. User:Carolmooredc talk 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Liz, the general sanctions are fairly standard, and they are what they are. If you have a specific question, I can try to answer it, but it would have to be fairly concrete. In response to Carolmooredc, what kind of "notices" are you talking about? (As an aside, I'm not really the "author" of the sanctions. Although I took some minor liberties with the wording, it was written (cloned actually) by another editor and adopted by the community. In other words, strictly speaking, the community is the author.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is relevant link. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Carol, I saw it after I posted my question here. I've left a comment on AQFT's talk page about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• " the general sanctions are fairly standard, and they are what they are"

That's my issue. If you go look at the page I linked to, it doesn't actually say what "general sanctions" are. There is really nothing on the page beyond saying that general sanctions are in effect. What they are, what it takes to violate them, what violations result in, any information about actual sanctions is absent. I think you have to assume that any Editor being directed to this page has never encountered the term "general sanctions" and has no idea what that term means.

The idea that only Admins can place GS notices on an Editor's Talk Page is news to me! In the pseudoscience area, very involved Editors typically place AC/DS notices on Talk Pages every time a new user starts posting on an article judged to be pseudoscience. It is, frankly, quite intimidating to get these warning messages (which are given quite freely) and I think it causes some Editors to simply avoid working on those articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First point. I didn't understand what you meant (now I do). The "community discussion" link on WP:AEGS will take the reader to the consensus reached and the terms of the sanctions. I've wikified "general sanctions" on the page, which may help. Second point. It's not true that only admins can post notices to user talk pages, although it's less common for a non-admin to do so, and at least in the case of the Austrian economics sanctions, I explained on AQFT's talk page how that should be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I asked for clarification on WP:AN. MilesMoney (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Geez, now we know about notices. I think you better give an explanation as I see you did to AQFK or it will yet another forum for brouhahas. Sigh. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

American Ultra

The article American Ultra about an indie film is recently created by Ilooklikesumit. But the problem is that the film is still under pre-production or early stages of pre-production atleast, and filming will not be start until April 2014. I don't think this article fulfill WP:NFF. --Jockzain (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How does this connect to me?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They think you might be an admin and you can delete this film that they dislike. Maybe you can! Actually, who cares? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't feel like saying it before, but isn't that WP:CANVASSING? And there are quite a few admins out there; why me?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you rock, of course ES&L 01:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions of WP:CANVASSING and I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I caused you. I just wanted to notify more experienced editors about this film because they can better judge this matter and as I am aware of your work at Wikipedia and I respect you for it that’s why I informed you about it.--Jockzain (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I didn't want to mention canvassing in my initial reply was because I didn't suspect you of any bad motives. Unfortunately, generally you're not permitted to come to any editor if the perception is you're trying to influence a vote. Here you are the nominator, the discussion has been open a very short time, and the message you left me wasn't neutral. You didn't inconvenience me at all. I just want you to be familiar with policy. This is hardly a controversial AfD, but you could get in trouble if you did something like this in a discussion that was more visible. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining me in detail about the policy; I will remember it from now on.--Jockzain (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99

Member Sopher99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sopher99 contrary to the rules of sound logic and make changes on your own, and mistakenly interprets information from news sources. Could you look into this situation.

But in this talk page as there are reports of other members of his change is not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war

And here you can keep track of all of its changes and then on what basis he made the change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map178.94.221.5 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg you to take action against members Sopher99!!!! He is not in compliance with the rules and edits as he wants, and so I think not only I, but many others. If you do not take action against him, but finally ruin the section of the civil war in Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.234.228 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He also broke the rule twice 1RR! was blocked twice.92.112.234.228 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Striked out ip socks of User:Deonis_2012 Sopher99 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just preparing to write about this. We need quick action, It's not possible to resist anymore. AOnline (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99, there's no reason to strike comments on my talk page - it just makes it harder for me to read them. AOnline and Sopher99, is there really any reason to take any action at this point? I'm willing to accept that the two IPs are probably Deonis 2012 (although I'm not familiar enough with the details to be sure of that), but the two are both dynamic IPs and both made only a few edits to talk pages and then stopped. If they continue to be disruptive, please let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

AOnline was actually talking about taking action against me. You see I am a CIA-funded Mossad agent from the international space station orbiting around the earth. Recently my space station has passed over Syria, meaning it is now up to me to maintain the recently formed alqaeda-freemason alliance by spreading NWO propaganda on a wikipedia template page viewed by 2,305 people daily. Sopher99 (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's very funny, Sopher, thanks. While you're up there, can you fix the ozone layer?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23 here is how I know one of key rules, it is objectivity and not bias of participants which make variations in Wikipedia but as I have understood the given rules only an empty phrase. When one people punish for their infringement, and others can break them and them for it do not punish. Then in such rules is not present what sense. And participant Sopher99 breaks rules of editing and instead of that would will be corrected who derides those to it about it speaks, and you as the manager do not respond also it is sad. Thanks for your help........ I do not dare to disturb you more. And thank you, that you have even answered my request, instead of have simply removed it!92.112.234.228 (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hyun Jin Moon

I am working on Hyun Jin Moon. I made many changes. They were reverted by you. I have no complains. I request you to give me a chance to elaborate this article. I've done a lot of reading and research on the topic and found it worthy to extend. I need time to extend and make it neutral and to cite it properly. I thank you for keeping a watch on the article as it will help me know more guidelines. I find wikipedia no less than an ocean of knowledge. That's the reason I want to contribute more and more to wikipedia.Royale Heart 06:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royale.heart (talk • contribs)

Royale.heart, you're going to have to work on your edits before you add them to the article. I can't leave the promotional and unsourced material in the actual article. So, I will revert your changes again. You can work in your sandbox if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

B. K. Sekhar

Thanks for that - I did look for history to see if something like that had happened and my computer insisted there was none so I went for speedy. I will have to find out now why I browser told me that was the first page.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 09:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletation of my Pages

As per my knowledege all the made by me are deleteed under copyright voilasetion to as knowldgdthe movie were co producer and produce by Mr sunil sharma as have all the proof of copyright with Mr.bumb....we are the sole producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tummile2 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

about Eiichi Kasahara

Thank you for your support on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiichi_Kasahara&action=edit&redlink=1 This time, I couldn't find enough information for the references in English. I will try when I got enough resources for this. Thanks. Pinablue JPN (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists - where's the limit?

Since you have followed up with edits in Holy Trinity Diocesan High School after me I might as well ask you, although I was about to ask at the help desk. Do we have a policy or a guideline to how long, bulleted, unreferenced lists in e.g. a section like Clubs or a section like Past Musicals we accept? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is I don't know. I imagine we don't and it's an editorial decision requiring consensus if challenged. Other guidelines regarding noteworthiness and secondary references would probably apply. You could poke around at WP:WPSCH and see if the question has ever been addressed and, if not, post it. Some projects are responsive to that sort of thing, and some, unfortunately, are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy reason

Any policy justification for [16]? NE Ent 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:HIGHHANDED. I was actually going to wait until TParis modified the sanctions page, given that he closed the discussion, but your changes were out of line.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:CFredkin

I can see that you felt the user was continuing an edit war when he made this edit. However the edit appears to me to be attempting to clarify and correct a contentious statement, after CFredkin had left a note on the talkpage some 18 hours earlier.

The contentious statement is cited to a source which does not say that the topic of the article is considered a moderate, and appears to be based on original research.

I can see there is an edit war taking place on the article regarding this statement, but somehow Grammarxxx the other party in the edit war, was neither warned nor blocked. It appears to me that this situation needs talking through in order to resolve the issue, so I have locked down the article. CFredkin and Grammarxxx need to get together to discuss the contentious material. I am willing to moderate the discussion. Would you please unblock CFredkin to allow this discussion to take place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Silk Tork, CFredkin initially violated WP:3RR on November 8 and was blocked by Darkwind. Grammarxxx made three reverts, two during a 24-hour window, and one outside of it. Thus, they did not violate 3RR, although they theoretically could have been blocked for edit warring anyway. I was not involved in any warnings or any administrative action.

I'm aware that after CFredkin's block expired he posted to the talk page, waited, and then restored his version of the lead. I'm sure you've read my comment on his talk page. I blocked on conduct alone. The content dispute is not of the kind that would normally excuse the disruption. Ironically, I'm somewhat sympathetic to CFredkin's position in the matter. What Grammarxxx - and others as they're not the only editor clinging to that language - is doing is WP:SYNTHESIS. The New Democrat Coalition, according to our article (I know nothing about the caucus) is composed of moderate democrats. Therefore, Grammarxxx is using Mahoney's membership in it to make the statement. It shouldn't be done that way, neither in the body nor the lead. At most, in my view, the body/lead could say that Mahoney caucuses with the moderate New Democrat Coalition as we often ascribe labels to people and entities if those labels are supportable - although even that is often disputed.

I will unblock CFredkin, mainly because you request it and because you're willing to monitor the situation. I wish, though, that you'd impress upon him that, regardless of the merits of his position, his methods need to change, and he needs to more fully grasp policy on these matters. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bbb23. Just for the record, this series of edits by Grammarxxx: one, two, and three, show a clear violation of 3RR. But what's more important is that we all move forward from this, and your unblocking has helped in that. I have no intention of doing a retrospective block of Grammarxxx; rather, I wish to have the contentious edit resolved. And perhaps pass on some advice to BOTH parties regarding how to conduct themselves in future. ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It requires four reverts to breach 3RR. That doesn't mean, of course, that you can't counsel Gramarxxx about edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, it is a bit surprising that you do not know that breaking 3RR entails 4 reverts. Of course that does not mean because a person only has 3 reverts that they are not edit warring, but your use of terms here shows that you seem a bit confused on the policies. Also, if you look at the history of the page, CFredkin was not only reverted by Gramarxxx. Mugboshgu reverted him here, Ruby Murray here and Tiller54 here. To go along with the Gramarxxx reverts over a period of 3 days. So one would think you should concentrate your discussion on instructing CFredkin that once another editor challenges their change to an article, he must use the Talk page to gain consensus for any changes. In lieu of that, he can also use dispute resolution or start an RFC. His mass changes to dozens of political BLP articles can be seen as one-sided, but more than that is the refusal to accept other editors concerns and consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NYCWikiKid

This editor, whom you blocked for 3RR, has posted an unblock request. I'm letting you know in case you have comments on the request before another admin reviews the block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor Johnsmith2116

I saw you blocked him for a week. What you did was justified but I find it regrettable. This editor can contribute if he'd adhere to the simple rule(s)- Don't make incomplete edits or problematic edits like he did to Chris Kirk. If he'd promise to do that and make no more personal attacks against me(An apology would be nice but not necessary.) I'd hope the block could be lifted. I'm willing to work with him. My going to ANI today was caused by his multiple diatribes against me. Let me know what you think. I'm going to ping The Bushranger to about about this thread so he can add his input if TBR so desires....William 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Given what I saw, I'd say it was regrettably necessary. If he'd step down off his soapbox and listen, he might well become a good editor, but he needs to remember Wikipedia does not need him; if he can't be civil and collaborative he needs to find somewhere else where he can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I did a fairly thorough look at the history. You did an excellent job of presenting a case, even if the result was not what you wished. I also looked carefully at Bushranger's comments, both at ANI and elsewhere, as he was more familiar than I with the problems. I didn't see one ounce of understanding on John's part, and no matter how much Bushranger tried to communicate the various problems to him, he just didn't get it. Finally, the veiled sock puppet threats (although they were expressed poorly, so it's not 100% certain that's what they were) truly bothered me. Even if they weren't threats of sock puppetry, they were clearly threats, and that raises red flags for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, your block was justified. I thought I'd just make the case for a warning or shorter block as long as Jsmith promised not to continue his editing behavior that warranted the block in the first place. Cheers!...William 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

[17] Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TWC on ANI

I mentioned you in this section of ANI discussing thewolfchild. It appears s/he's exhibiting similar talk page behavior to what you brought there last month. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Picozu Article

How can an article about a closed web service like Picnik or Aviary be more significant than one about a web services used by over 55k users Picozu? Can you please give more details about why you deleted the article? How can I fix that? Classypm (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All the article said is it's a service, it has 55,000 users (which doesn't mean much, regardless of the fact it's unsourced), and it can do these things. The only references are to the company's website. There's nothing in the article that establishes notability by secondary reliable sources, not even any unsourced credible claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN revert

Hi Bbb23. So, when you reverted my edit here, are you sure that that is the correct name of the policy? I fixed it because I thought at the time that the text was wrong, but feel free to say otherwise. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "correct name of the policy". The paragraph is just listing the kinds of bans that may be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You changed the text "article ban or page ban" (my revision) to "article or page ban" (your revision). Is it really called the "article or page ban"? I'm just curious. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood what you did and have restored your change, which is an improvement (in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Napster

You continue to censor my sourced and cited contributions, proving that Napster massively hurt record sales, in favor of infringer- spread propaganda about how Napster and the other file-copying systems were going to "help" record sales. You also deleted my "talk" inquiry which asked whether you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST by virtue of having infringed copyrights using Napster or the other file-copying systems. If you can deny it, then please deny it. ArdenHathaway 20:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello?ArdenHathaway 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)

ArdenHathaway, your assertion is ridiculous. According to their user boxes, Bbb23 enjoys classical music and enjoys opera. This does not mean they have a conflict of interest when editing classical music and opera articles. In short, their answer is irrelevant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anna Maria Fish Co.

Hi Bbb23. Would you consider restoring this article and taking it to a deletion discussion? The basis of notability is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and there were cited sources focused solely on this company. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(visitor posting) I can see only one reference - to 'Florida Trend magazine' which I can't access. There was an external link to the company's website. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the very substantial coverage cited from Florida Trend, the company has also been the subject of very substantial coverage in a New York Times article. If that source was not included in the article I will be happy to add it once the article is restored. Thanks for your assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The NYT article has significant coverage of the company. I don't know if it would be kept in an AfD, but I think it's enough to withstand an A7, so I've restored it. I don't promise it won't be retagged as I made it clear that the tag was being removed without prejudice to another editor tagging it. If it is tagged, I'll let another admin review it. If I were you, I'd add the NYT source and beef up the article as much as you can to satisfy notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Child's Right to Genital Integrity/Autonomy Movement

Hi Ms. B,

Thank-you for your kind welcome and introducing me Wikipedia's guidelines. You are right in thinking that I have chosen a contentious subject. It is a subject that deserves to be represented neutrally on this cultural interface, especially as it evolves with ourselves.

I would like to develop a page here to describe the subject above. Might you have any advice to share with me?

Thanks, DavidHGrateful (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

SKDubasia (talk · contribs)

Hi, this user is up to the same disruption as Sagar Dubasia (talk · contribs) and the name is also pretty similar a clear case of WP:DUCK. I don't think an SPI is required. Could you have a look? Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to either file a report at SPI or give me more to go on. And if you decide to file a report, you'll need more evidence than you've given me here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hi Bbb23, thought I'll leave a note of appreciation for the work you do around the project, especially how you man the Edit Warring and 3RR desk. Well done. Take care and see you around. Wifione ^Message 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Always good to hear from you, Wifione, and thanks for the kind words. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

NBA loans

I've indeffed User:Progsofts as advertising only, but looking into the history, I think it's a User:Morning277 operator. They started off using a creation of a Morning277 group account as a template, and it was rather an unlikely one to use in November 2013 as it was deleted in July 2013... Peridon (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the user. I don't follow your allusion to "group account as a template", though.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - they used a long deleted article created by an M277 bod as a template now. They must have had a copy of it to hand is what I was trying to say. Are we still blocking M277s as socks or not? I mean, OK, this one's blocked, but should it be labelled as well? There's no way that it isn't M277 work if the labelling of the author of the deleted article is correct. Sorry about the delay in replying - I'm not on my usual connection and haven't been at home for a couple of days. Peridon (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 and then decide what you should do, if anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please

Have a look at Talk:Stormfront (website)#Recent stonewalling attempt by ArtifexMayhem & Maunus and the recent edits by Kobayashi245 (talk · contribs). I'm involved obviously, but this seems to simply a continuation of earlier behavior - he doesn't seem to get it. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

After I posted this I realised we are in different time zones, so went to ANI and FP blocked him. I hope we are all right about the sanctions thing. It just seemed to me that we had pulled the teeth out of the sanctions - and with the participation of those most involved in the content area. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for taking care of the Kobayshi problem, and we are fine about the sanctions. I commented at ANI on Kobayshi, and I made a "formal" proposal with extra details on Austrian Economics at AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:22 Male Cali

AKA Fareed30, AKA Lagoo sab. Can you block his email privileges on that sock account, I really do not want to get mail from him. Will forward the mail to you if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you, Darkness Shines, but I'd prefer to see the e-mail. If either Fareed30 or Lagoo sab had e-mail turned off, I would do it without, but they don't. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Shall I copy&paste it here or forward it to you mate? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

E-mail it to me, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have your mail, so I have mailed you from here, so you can mail me and then I can forward the socks mail to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just cut-and-paste the e-mail, including the header if you can, and e-mail that to me from Wikipedia. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sent it mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DS, I personally have received far worse and not blocked e-mail capability of the user. That said, if you still wish me to block e-mail, I will. And I don't mean to imply that you are thin-skinned, which lord knows you are not. I'm fine with doing it if you still wish it. Just let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all that fussed mate, just figured a sock ought not be sending mail And I am a super sensitive soul, how could you think me not, shall go off now for a good cry. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Let's just say it's not a big deal cutting off e-mail for a sock, but that doesn't mean it happens automatically. If he persists (sends you another one), let me know. In the meantime, I have no doubt that your 10-minute tear fest has made you a better man, and I look forward to the new peaceful you spreading joy and conciliation all over Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Foreverlin before giving a chance to edit.

You deleted my page that I was currently editing. I was adding all the relevant sources needed to validate the page, and also removed all of the "promotion/un-neutral" parts of the page. Someone had tagged it, and thus I was fixing it, but you deleted it before I had appropriate chances to make the page compatible with wikipedia. And it said it was deleted because of A7, but the whole page was a history of the band Foreverlin. Blomby86 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow the guidelines at WP:AFC. An article shouldn't be put into article space until it's ready.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it was tagged, and why I was fixing it in a timely manner. But you deleted it before I could finish, and the reason you deleted it was false. I spent hours getting that ready just to have it deleted without time to fix it. Blomby86 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to WP:USERFY it to a subpage in your user space, I will. Then, you can work on it there until you think it's ready. After that, I strongly urge you to submit to WP:AFC. And stop creating articles about the group's albums. I am deleting them per A9. They are unlikely to be notable even if the article about the group withstands an A7. I don't know if you have an affiliation with the group, but you need to slow down.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure do that. Please do that with all of my pages that you deleted. How would they not be notable if they are completely validated and referenced and even reviewed? They give the history of the albums the band released and charted on. It says a "notable" band is one that has charted nationally, and received airplay on larger stations, which they have. Blomby86 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article to User:Blomby86/Foreverlin. I'm not going to restore the album pages until the group article is acceptable. They're pretty short anyway, but if you want me to restore them later, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Too good a job

Thanks for making WP:SCWGS so clear. I made a couple of log entries there and wasn't baffled and confused by the usual sanction gobbledygook. But while I'm here, and since you are still doing so good a job, it looks like WP:SCWGS#Remedies still has a reference to WP:ARBPIA which might be a leftover from the past. Didn't the community sanctions take over from ARBPIA on these pages? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference was intentional because the community sanctions were intended to mirror the ARBPIA sanctions. Perhaps we should alter the wording a bit to make it less confusing. How about "The remedies are the same as those at WP:ARBPIA" or "The remedies mirror those at WP:ARBPIA", or I'm open to other suggstions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'The remedies mirror those of WP:ARBPIA' sounds better. If you want, you could also wikilink the phrase 'general sanctions' in the section at WP:SCWGS#Community discussion to WP:General sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is every insta-sanctions-decision always indefinitely? Oh... yeah... Peace in the Middle East.  :-/     Wonder why that is a redlink? I just got roped into helping with some allegations made by anonymous pro-Syrian bloggers that an Israeli sub with onboard nukes was sunk, and that in retaliation there was either a bunker-buster or a tactical nuke used on Syria. The story, such as it is, was picked up by Gordon Duff, and therefore technically satisfies WP:RS. I was planning to recommend putting the story into the relevant articles -- Syrian Navy and the particular sub-hardware-model-topic-article -- with the surrounding context making clear that besides blogs and Gordon, no mainstream sources carry this story, to include e.g. Syrian television et al.

  Point being, that would possibly end the low-grade edit back-n-forth to get this factoid into various places, yet still not mislead the readers about what the mainstream view is on the possibility of sunken nukes and possible counter-nukings. Editors on both sides seem reasonable, though the issue itself is of course very touchy subject-matter. So... is this win-by-yielding-jujutsu a Very Bad Idea? Or, not necessarily all that bad, if done with care? Advice and criticism welcome. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

do you have time for walking Clover1991 through WP:AFC first steps

Hello Bbb23, due to a keyboard-related tea-collision mishap, TimTrent is no longer available for this at present. You mentioned AfC; are you interested in shouldering this phase? This is the malaysian roadsweeper-n-military-6x6 person. There are now two verified WP:RS which show minor Notability, and one other they are supposed to be getting back to me on (archive-search at the malaysian newspaper is totally bogus), plus a few noteworthy-mentions. Expect the final article will be a couple short paragraphs plus an infoboxen. Note that existing text in Clover1991 sandbox suffers from SPA/COI and prolly COPYVIO, so I'd like their initial AfC submission to be just one sentence, which uninvolved editors like Tim & myself can then flesh out from the sources. Still, for their pride as a beginner I'd like Clover to have their name on the article-submit, even if they don't author most of the sentences therein.  :-)   If you have time, let me know, or better yet, just post a message about WP:AfC over on User_talk:Clover1991. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the time to help out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No problemo, thanks for reading. If you happen to run across somebody that is flailing, I have a subsection on my talkpage called AfI (articles for improvement), feel free to stick them in there. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary

Since you deleted New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary once before, can you take a look at it again and see whether you think it needs another G11, or whether it could just be stubbified to its first 2 sentences? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack, a G11 is no longer applicable. Nor would I personally reduce it to the first two sentences. That doesn't mean that some of the material shouldn't be removed, but you'll first have to look at the only source (the school's website), and see whether material is supported there. If it isn't, you should at a minimum tag it and probably remove it entirely. If it is, then you have to decide whether the school's website should be considered sufficiently reliable for the material, and that would, of course, depend on the material. There's also probably material that is not noteworthy, and that's yet another issue. One thing that literally sticks out at me is the size of the logo. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The reliability isn't what I'm concerned with. It's the noteworthiness I'm worried about. Every school has P.E., english, math, buses, fire alarms, etc. After the lead, that seems to be all the article is saying. (By the way, I fixed the logo.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Small world. I'm working on this also; the article is a first attempt by a beginning editor -- they were the one who signed up for RfA with the reason "somebody keeps deleting my uploaded images and they must be stopped"...    :-)   User:Begoon and User:Yngvattdotir and myself are busy chasing them around. The beginning editor has stopped responding to talkpages temporarily, out of frustration with all the template-spam I presume. Would appreciate it if the article be left standing, in the meantime, so that we have a chance to make contact and transfer some WP:CLUE. Methinks only the in-country-editor has a chance to provide non-copyvio photos (which they have) and cites to local newspapers (which we've asked for but they have not yet responded to). Please feel free to ping my talkpage about this. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Như Quỳnh (actress)

Could you restore the content that was deleted here from the page Như Quỳnh (actress). Its creator persistently is justifying himself like in [18] or [19] that Quỳnh-then version explained why it passed WP:A7. Thank you for the answer. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch, there were just a couple of Vietnamese sentences that I had translated. You want those? I don't see the point. BTW, I just quickly skimmed the talk page discussion and the CSD talk page discussion you linked to, and I don't see that you've done anything wrong. Rather, it sounds like the creator is just making rules up to suit their preferences. Nor do I think you (or I) should have to cater to their needs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Chapter 6 Mastery Product

I recently posted a page that was title "Chapter 6 Mastery Product" and you deleted it. I was wondering on why that is and how I can get my page sharable with the world once again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdhr4 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is it? Looks like an outline for a book or something you're writing?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a student in high school and after I read a chapter from my AP Government and Politics book I need to share my knowledge with the world and I felt that a Wikipedia article would be a good way to share what I learned. Is there anything I can do to get my page back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdhr4 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your review of a chapter in a textbook is not an encyclopedia article. I suggest you read some of the links in the Welcome message on your talk page to find out more about how Wikipedia works. Good luck with your studies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what he was told in WP:REFUND ES&L 00:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside input on RfC format

An editor has just proposed a very vague RfC. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#RfC. I cannot see how an RfC in this format has any chance of advancing anything but the waste of a gagillion pixels. Could you please comment and or take any appropriate actions. thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this up at AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, I'm sure ANI was delighted to field another dicussion about Rupert Sheldrake. Looks like you may now be off to WP:AE. Bon voyage.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Bbbb23,

Thanks for questioning this user for me as you did here [20] especially since I know you've not always been a big fan of me. lol! I was seriously about to come down on the user for this uncalled-for tantrum literally out of nowhere here [21]. I've never even come past this user beyond his remarks on my talk page and the revert, so I've not even had any edit wars with him. I am as confused as you are. For now, I'm deleting his remarks and ignoring his uncivil trolling. If you need the remarks on my talk page for discussion with him though, please let me know and I'll gladly reinstate them. Thanks again! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITOGENESIS

The name comes from this comic. The name of which is quite memorable and unambiguous — "WP:CIRCULAR" may refer to any number of things. Keφr 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly one person's opinion. Perhaps some of my talk page stalkers will chime in on how "memorable" it is. Personally, I don't read comics, but I did appreciate the link. Sounds like some sort of scientific process to me, but what do I know?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mary Cummins

I didn't get an email, just the talk page message. I can't imagine why she thought her user page was the only invisible one on Wikipedia. She has the skills to be a useful contributor, but seems to be spoiling for a fight most of the time, either edit-warring or promoting her company (I'll let the accusation of cyberstalking go). I've posted on her page, let me know if you think I've got the tone wrong. We will just have to see whether she is prepared to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

response

It says "sandbox." I assume that is a private area to test things. I have never seen anyone's sandbox. Our user pages are not viewable in search engines. How in the world did you even know I made an edit to my page which is one of I would think millions? Who are you? Why are you following me and watching my page? I see you deleted links to my real estate site but left the one to the non-profit. I will put the data that relates to the non-profit back. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action

Hi Bbb23, Thanks for giving me a talkpage notice of your concern at Rupert Sheldrake. I notice that today you only contacted myself and User:Vzaak of discretionary sanctions: [22] which immediately appears to be an intimidation tactic since you are not involved in refereeing the actual article or content of the talkpage in question. Your remarks on my user talkpage also did not include evidence that my edits were actually reverts. This is at the very least indicative of incompetence and, at worst, a further sign of your lack of objectivity in this matter.

I am also a little concerned that you may be singling out people on the basis of your acknowledged rigid interpretation of WP:BLP which was a primary concern of those who opposed your request for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bbb23#Oppose including such notable content workers as User:Hipocrite and User:DGG.

I believe that your involvement as an administrator in the controversies surrounding Rupert Sheldrake may, therefore, be imprudent at this time and ask that you remove yourself from further action on these articles.

jps (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of Warning

The sanctions page says,

Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

What is the misconduct and how do I mend my ways? vzaak (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the language about discretionary sanctions is not consistent. There are also some changes in the works (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review). If you look at the log of notifications (think of them as notifications or alerts as opposed to warnings), you'll see that I've notified quite a few editors who have been recently editing the Rupert Sheldrake article, mainly because that article has generated a fair amount of heat. I didn't single you out. That said, one thing I would recommend is that you revert less frequently. Unlike some topic areas, the article is not subject to WP:1RR, but frequent reverts in a short space of time can be considered disruptive in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. You have reverted three times today. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. I removed unsourced statements in a BLP and I removed a joke about dildos in a BLP. Please tell me which specific edits are misconduct. vzaak (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your joke removal was one of two consecutive edits (I don't count it), the other one of which was a revert. None of the reverts I am counting would be exempt as WP:BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me which specific edits are misconduct. I want to correct my misconduct, however I cannot do that if it is not specified what my misconduct is. vzaak (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I never used the word "misconduct"; you keep using that label. I said above, "frequent reverts in a short space of time can be considered disruptive in an article subject to discretionary sanctions." You tell me which of your edits were reverts. Read the policy carefully first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am using the terminology in Discretionary sanctions,

Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;

Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

Please tell me specifically which edits indicate misconduct to you. You say that I am reverting, but the removal of dildo jokes and unsourced content in a BLP are a sign of good conduct, not misconduct. vzaak (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm done here. You'll have to seek help somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, you left a message on my homepage saying I had reverted three times today and this is forbidden. I think you must be mistaken. I have only made five edits to that article in total: one was to fix a typo, 2 were new content added by me, and two other edits where I undid changes to the article because the previous version better covered the issues at hand. I am therefore unsure what you mean by "revert". I can't imagine it simply means edits since others have made many edits to that page in the space of 1 day. Grateful if you could clarify. Thanks.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read the definition of revert at WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is only moderately helpful, Bbb23. You should at the very least provide some diffs and explain what was a revert. You may be correct that myself and others are guilty of reverting many times, but we cannot figure out how you came to this conclusion if you don't present your evidence and analysis. Simply quoting policy is rather a cop-out. jps (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I have now read the policy but I believe you have miscounted. Grateful if you clarify which edits you are counting as the three reverts as I can only see two. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

#1; #2; and #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How do numbers one and two count as reverts? The third I understand, but the first two are surely just straightforward changes to wording (newly written by me at the time of those edits). Barleybannocks (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the definition: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In each of the first two reverts you changed other editors' wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's going to cover almost every change anyone ever makes with the exception of wholly new material. That can't be the actual intention of the rule! Barleybannocks (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it is. Normally, editors don't make that many changes in a 24-hour window, so the issue of breaching WP:3RR (requires four reverts) or even just plain edit warring (which is more discretionary) doesn't arise. Also, administrators have the discretion not to count certain technical reverts. So, for example, if you did a minor copy edit, that probably wouldn't count. Your first two reverts here were actually quite substantive. They truly changed the meaning of the material. If someone had filed a report against you, I would certainly count them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you suppose the rule is called "revert"? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revert Would it not make sense to change the name to the three change rule if that's what it means?Barleybannocks (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, the word is deeply imbedded in the culture here. Some people think that 3RR should be changed to 4RR because you have to revert four times to breach the rule, but that's unlikely to ever happen, either. At least now you understand it better I hope, even if you don't like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if the mention of my name was intended to bring me hereto comment, but since I have now looked at the recents edits to the article, the substance of Vzaak's recent edits to this article have, in my opinion, been consistently in the spirit of the pseudoscience policy, wholly constructive, and exceptionally helpful. I am quite impressed by his resolution of the dispute over the lede paragraph, which is always a tricky matter in this subject.

Barleybannock's work has also been constructive, and in accordance with psseudoscience policy. I agree that the 2nd and 3rd edits above are similar, so I see it as 2 RR, but I cannot see it as unequivocally wrong to call it 3RR. One of the reasons I dislike arbitrary rules is because then we get involved in quibbling over the definitions.

However, it is AE policy that the placement of a warning is a purely informational matter, and not enforcement, and therefore cannot be appealed . While in my opinion using discretionary sanctions against either editor would be an misuse of discretion, placing the notice is not. Let's keep this in proportion. And, FWIW, any prior disagreements between me and Bbb are quite besides the point. Each action is judged in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Article neutrality Anarcho-syndicalism

Could you look at this article [23] diff. and the diffs around it and the behavior of the editor Ites please? He has put some stuff on my talk page that I remove, borderline harassing I think, and seems to continue making the Anarcho-syndicalism reflect a point of view rather than keeping it informational. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Same person keeps calling me names (troll) in his edit summaries and removing the Neutrality tag from this article [24]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I did put stuff on Earl's talk page that he removed that's true - I attempted to discuss with him his refusal to discuss his systematic policy of undoing edits I had made in the name of "neutrality" without at any point making any effort whatsoever to explain what was problematic about what I had written or even to attempt to engage with me on any level about our different points of view, other than to assort falliciously that what he was saying was true because he had said it and that apparently that was the end of the discussion. Why is it my fault if Earl refuses to engage in respectful and reciprocal discussion about the nature of what he perceives to be neutrality or to accept that other people have points of view that differ from his own? Why is it my fault if he appears unable to distinguish between edits that lack neutrality and edits that he happens not to like? I'm sick to death of people acting like autocrats and then running crying for the first authority figure they can find when they can no longer force their own way and make up stories about being victimised while refusing to acknowledge any shortcomings in their own conduct or exhibit any willingness or capacity to distinguish between being criticised and being attacked. Earl is one who has engaged in persistent harassment and now as far as I'm concerned bullying into the bargain with the above, which seems to me to constitute the beginnings of a smear campaign. I did remove the neutrality tag, that much is true; what Earl fails to mention is that he removed the tag I placed above it putting myself forward as a user to contact in case of queries with references and citation; how can you remove a second tag like that and continue to maintain the pretence that there is anything even approaching a civil discussion about the nature of neutrality taking place? From where I was standing it felt very much like my edits were being censrored in the name of "protecting neurality," a campaign he appears to be attempting to escalate here. If "troll" is such a bad word to describe a mode of conduct, why is it used as the basis for an entire article here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVandals_versus_Trolls Is it preferable to act like a troll as long as you don't attempt to describe anyone's conduct as trolling? I have no interest at all in Earl beyond the fact that he appears to have zero respect for other contributors. Perhaps I might have found a better way to describe his conduct; perhaps he could choose to conduct himself in a far more reciprocal manner. Perhaps he could not just delete any criticsm of his conduct made by others on the talk page or any attempt to engage him in constructive discussion about the nature of his approach to editing the page. Also if Earl is operating in such good faith, why does he revert to the most heavy-handed edits possible at the first raising of an editing dispute? Ites76 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also I would have been in contact with you days ago over this if I had known that I had been able Ites76 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can't engage with Earl on content without resorting to conduct comments, then either disengage from the article or, as I stated on the article talk page, seek dispute resolution. Your current approach is not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't disengaging from an article you're being heavied out of just reward bad behaviour? Ites76 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's your view that there is "bad behavior". BTW, {{Maintained}} should never be used on an article page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my view supported by evidence that I'm providing that there is atrocious behaviour on Earl's part. Look at the talk page; other people have complained about Earl's conduct as well. Sorry about that; still a newbie.Ites76 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The question still remains about rewarding bad behaviour. If you're keen not to reward mine then surely you should be just as keen not to reward Earl's. Maybe I showed poor judgment in choosing how to describe his behaviour, but he has been extremely heavy-handed and totally unwiling to engage in respectful and reciprocal discussion about the page from the getgo.Ites76 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to get past this. I've outlined an approach for you as to the content dispute. It's up to you. Conduct issues are addressed on other forums on Wikipedia, if you were to take your accusations to one of those forums, your conduct would also be scrutinized, and, newbie or not, it would be unlikely to go well. Your almost exclusive focus on this one article would also be viewed suspiciously.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User Ites has resumed where he left off more or less. I think it is not so much a content dispute as him taking personal issue with my edits because he is bringing up personality issues on the talk page again, questioning personality things about myself as an editor as a way to explain why he is reverting me. He now is saying my edits are undemocratic in his edit descriptions, his reasoning for reverting me Anarcho-syndicalism. I am thinking it might not be possible to reason with this person. I have explained patiently about the guidelines on neutral editing, but he is somehow personally insulted by my edits? Not really sure why because to my knowledge I have not done anything I can think of to warrant that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

Taking you back to May of this year (helpful Talk archive link), this sock appears to have re-emerged. I'm engaging in a bit of inference in the latest SSI report, here, and would appreciate any input you may have. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That new notification thing

I was contacted offwiki by someone who is not Wikipedia literate but knows that I am to do something regarding something you may have done. My contractor is not, to my knowledge, an editor of Wikipedia, and is not jps, who is unaware that I am writing this. The offsite locus of interaction is RationalWiki, and the reason I was contacted is because I am mentioned above as someone who pooped on your RFA, and it is very public that I think that the pseudoscience that whacko loons are free to defend on this pathetic excuse for an encyclopedia is revolting. Congratulations for wading in a cesspit - it takes far more guts than I have to argue with fools without also retaining the ability to blatantly abuse my authority to get rid of them. That's why I left this place, and why I'm only returning to do this as a favor to one of my fellow Rationalwikians who is interested merely in rebutting Sheldrake, and is involved in Wikipedia as a reader only, to my knowledge. Not only that, but I'm logging out after this (well, I might RVVANDALIZE something, first), so you are DEFINITELY getting the last word.

In [25], jps changes "Other scientists," to "Scientists and skeptics." Could you explain to me how this was a revert? What editor action in reverted/what earlier version was reverted to? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hey Bbb23, would like to point out that 174.125.71.54 looks like a clear sock puppet of User:Black60dragon. I changed his service award to the correct one upon him being blocked, and the one thing he always does at a different IP address' is change it back to the false one he had up before. Maybe a extension on his block should also be appropriate, since this is definitely not his first time doing this. STATic message me! 04:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He's not blocked, so there's nothing to "extend". His block expired on November 8, and he hasn't edited logged in since before he was blocked. I agree that the two IPs are probably the same person, but I think you should take this to JamesBWatson as he's been handling all of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I saw you reverted the IP and I knew you were an administrator, so that is why I brought it your attention. But, I was unaware the account was no longer blocked, he had got so many extensions due to sockpuppetry I lost track. Anyways, if he is no longer blocked no action is needed, but thanks for the attention. Regards, STATic message me! 05:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Hello!

You recently reverted a change I had made on the Edit Warring article. "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." I had changed it to "Reverting actions performed by banned and blocked users, and their sock puppets," as I found the first a little misleading. Can blocked users not have sockpuppets? I will not change it back to my version for now, as it would seem quite ironic to start an edit war an the article about edit wars.

Here is the link to that page: Edit Warring

Thank You!

Nestik (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's surprising that an account with only a handful of edits would be changing a core policy at Wikipedia. That aside, your edit changed the meaning of the policy. If you want to discuss your change, you can open a topic on the policy talk page. As an aside, I also reverted another change you made to a Wikipedia page. This one was less important as it was a formatting issue, but your reformatting was incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A plea for a reconsideration of your policy re talk page use

I am worried what I am about to say will sound like I'm on a high horse, but I have strong feelings about requests to stay off a talk page. They are motivated by intense experiences in another forum, not here, but my antipathy to talk page restrictions applies here as well. I'm generally not in favor of any such restriction, although open to the possibility that some particular fact circumstance might persuade me otherwise in some cases. (I've seen many such requests; I've yet to see one I feel is warranted)

However, I feel more strongly in the case of admins. While many editors are fond of claiming that admins and non-admins are under the same set of rules, I agree, while not ant he same way. I think when we sign up to be admins we have to agree to put up with some things that non-admins don't have to accept. One of the things we have to accept is that editors will have a need to communicate with admins, and we need to be responsive. This is doubly true when posts are about an admin action involving the editor. We tell editors they should be dealing with the involved admin before bringing something to AN or ANI, and frankly, it is a bit annoying to see a thread on AN precisely because the involved editor was asked to stay off your talk page.

I haven't yet reviewed the merits of the charges, and deliberately did not, so I could share (vent?) my feelings without the taint of the specific case. I urge you to reconsider your policy of requesting that any editor stay off your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick, I've responded briefly to the issue in this case at WP:AN. See if that sufficiently explains it for you - not whether you agree with me, just whether it's enough for you to understand my viewpoint. If not, we can have a broader discussion about the issue later. I'd prefer to wait until the AN thread runs its course, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the AN discussion. Which reminds me I'm not pulling my weight when it comes to discretionary sanctions, and I need to do more. You did a nice job explaining your actions, and it look like things are improving in some cases. That said, I didn't see you address the request not to post on a talkpage, which is why it ended up at AN. Not a major deal, I've expressed my opinion, but if you have a different one, I don't see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the part at AN: "One more note about jps that he's not going to like. I told him to stay off my talk page. Some think that was ill-advised or even caused him to come here. I disagree on both counts. Of course, I can't know what he would have done, but I think he wanted to stir the pot, whether it was on his talk page, my talk page, or even on others' talk pages. His I'm-so-reasonable language is a nice cover for that (while he brings up opposers at my RfA and asks me to withdraw), but it doesn't work for me, and although I can't prevent him from stirring up trouble elsewhere (assuming he doesn't violate policy), I can monitor my own talk page, and I do. I had sufficiently responded to his issues, in my view not his, to satisfy my responsibilities as an administrator."

I'm glad that you may be inspired (guilt-tripped? ) into doing more with discretionary sanctions. That alone would be a positive outcome from the now-closed thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Delnex's use of fundoofun.com

I just saw you cleaned up an edit [26] by Delnex (talk · contribs). I just ran across this editor myself, and noticed that the sources and content he's adding probably doesn't meet WP:BLP. It also appears few if any attempts to use fundoofun.com as a source have remained in English Wikipedia.

Do you think that in general fundoofun.com is a reliable source for BLPs? --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed it because of BLP concerns, so I'm cleaning up the remainders. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, my apologies, I missed your first post. As I recall, I thought the material was trivial and shouldn't be in the article, but although I found the source odd, at the same time the assertion itself wasn't controversial, so I moved on.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

AmericanDad86

Thanks for asking. Fairly simple to provide you with the information and I'm glad to help out.

The promotional material was (re)added most recently at the following linked oldpage of The People's Court (after having been removed by another editor) one of many times this material was added or re-inserted by the editor in question (sourced to the promotional material on the show's Web site) and removed. As before, the material was immediately reinserted by the editor in question, leading to my own edits later and my insistence that the editor pay attention to the previous reverts.

As you can tell from the history, a number of other editors have also attempted to remove this material with clear justification, and the user has reinserted it into the article repeatedly.

You can also see that in order to produce what appeared to be multiple cited references to one claim, a link was added to an external document, [27], that has nothing to do with the article.

As to the history of edits/reverts at University of Wisconsin–Whitewater by the editor in question, I have no idea beyond my own quick look at the article's history just now, although it seems to square with the behavior shown in the history of The People's Court. Seems the problem might span multiple articles. ToFeignClef (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also interesting to note that the most recent revisions appear to include citation of a newspaper article that does not support the claims made. Perhaps more of the same found at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where the same reference is repeated multiple times to make it appear as though there are citations to different sources? ToFeignClef (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ToFeignClef, you've not answered any of the questions posed to you by Bbb23 on your talk page. I'm still trying to figure out how you arrived at me forging material and only using primary sources. I achieved the sources from 3 articles, 2 of which were NOT primary sources, NONE of which are copied word for word. This source that I used [28] is not The People's Court website. Also, it does IN FACT describe Milian as "animated" and "brainy." For that reason, I'm unsure why you've accused me of using only primary sources and so obnoxiously. And as you can see by the article, I used hardly any of the same words as the author of those pieces, so where does forgery come in? Please explain! Also, there hasn't been continued reverting at The People's Court article. The one time I reinstated that material, it was changed in that I added sourcing so it wasn't a revert and it wasn't an edit war.

From what I can see, the only legitimate claim you have, ToFeignClef, is my mistakenly adding in one source I intended for another article. Still in all, your tirade wasn't even for that reason as shown by your uncivil edit summary and remarks on my talk page. As you can see by ToFeignClef's tirade here [29] and here [30], he strictly brings up primary sources, promoting and forgery.

And while we're bringing up each other's past diffs, I should bring the following diffs to your attention Bbb23. The following diffs capture ToFeignClef communicating outrageously and instigating edit wars with others not unlike how he's doing with me at the very moment. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's fallen victim to ToFeignClef unprovoked belligerence. He has a known habit of belligerence with others, as shown here [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. ToFeignClef, if this is just your thing to pick fights here at Wikipedia and act in obnoxious manners, you have chosen the wrong party to engage and I guarantee you that. Cut it and cut it now! AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing that's bothering me about ToFeignClef. I've noticed that when he disagrees with an editor, he has a tendency to make like he has page protection tools as he's always making threats like "If you do it again, I will protect this page." Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this editor has the authority to protect articles here at Wikipedia. Yet, he makes edit summaries as though he has this authority, such as shown here [36] and here [37]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Bbb23, looks like you've dealt with this one before, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Thanks for asking and I wish you the best of luck with her. ToFeignClef (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR clarification

Concerning [38].

Before the discussion, I had no idea that such edits were included in the technical definition of a revert, and apparently neither did some other users. Both you and Mark Arsten in his closing of the discussion confirmed that this was the case. Lukeno94 also confirmed as much. Whatamidoing seems to confirm this as well, although what she says is not entirely clear. I thought it would good to include such a clarification, so that users can understand how not to break the 3RR rule. What do you think the problem with including it is? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In my view, except very minor changes, all changes to policies should be discussed first. This is a significant change, and many editors, even if they largely agreed with the concept, would probably not want to add the sentence. Personally, I would oppose it. The definition of a revert is in the first sentence. Adding the new second sentence is almost like saying the first sentence is not clear enough, so we'll say it again, but in a different way.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But wasn't that the lesson from the discussion: That it is not clear enough? Many users had no idea that as much was an implication of the definition. Is it not a condition of clarity that users generally be able to understand the definition? Or do you think that users do generally understand the definition, but it's just an unrepresentative sample in the discussion? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That was a pretty contentious discussion. I know I didn't enjoy it much. :-) Seriously, you cannot make a change to a policy based on a thread that was largely launched as criticism of an administrator's conduct. It's true the question of what a revert was discussed (ad nauseam, actually), but there was also a subtopic about discretionary sanctions, and a subtopic about notifications, and about warnings (different from notifications), and even WP:INVOLVED. It's not the same thing as having a discussion where you say, "I propose the policy be changed in this manner: ..." And then there's a real discussion about that. As an aside, there are many editors who want to change policy because they think it's not clear enough, and yet the policy doesn't change because there's no clear consensus for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. When I saw that Mark Arsten closed the discussion by saying "The technical definition of revert has been clarified", I thought he was giving a judgement on what the consensus view of the meaning of the policy was. Are you saying that this is not the case, and that there is no consensus that that is the technical definition? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The traditional place to argue about the definition of a revert is at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw this

Discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Should User talk:89.106.14.236 be tagged with {{openproxy}}? Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I commented at Anna's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maryse Selit, Speedy Deletion

Hi Bbb23, this article was deleted yesterday stating I recreated it after deletion per deletion discussion. The original article was deleted over a year ago and the notability issue raised in the deletion discussion was subsequently fixed per the admins commentary in the AfD. Can you please restore? The article has a substantial number of likes on its Facebook public page, which will be lost if it has to be recreated. Thanks for your help. Jamescur (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the article deleted per discussion and the article I deleted as being that different. Indeed, your iteration of the article has significantly less content than the one deleted in 2012. I don't care about Facebook likes. What "admins commentary" are you referring to? Why does your signature have a link to VQuakr's talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Bbb23, FWIW I have absolutely no idea who this editor is or why they are linking to my talk page in their signature. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, I didn't think there was any connection between the two of you; I pinged you so you'd be aware of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, the original article was posted by a different editor and was more verbose. Mine is concise and to the point. If you read the AfD commentary, it requested that any significant cases Selit worked on be added to avoid deletion and cited to other lawyer articles on Wikipedia as examples. An additional week was provided for the article to be revised with the suggested changes. However, that editor failed to work on it within the alloted timeframe and the article was deleted. The new article that I wrote, does in fact include two very substantial cases (the Walter Kronkite et al case against Donald Trump and the Sierra Club case). My apologies for the link to VQuakr, I merely copied and pasted a signature line to avoid retyping and must have inadvertently left that in there. --Jamescur 08:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, The Speedy delete tag on this article was placed by an Anonymous editor who seems motivated by some personal agenda against the subject. A review of that user's IP address indicates their contributions to Wiki started very recently when he/she nominated Dr. Selit's article for speedy deletion on Nov. 8th. The article was then deleted the very next day. The same User has also made daily delete contributions on Wikimedia, all of which (except for a couple as they have done with Wikipedia, presumably to give the appearance of legitimacy) are targeted at this particular subject. This anonymous editor's ill-motivated behavior clearly violates Wikipedia's purpose, policies and rules and constitutes vandalism and he/she should be blocked forthwith. Thanks. 207.237.211.246 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This was originally manually signed by the IP as Lmatt123 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC). --Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, Just curious, why did you change my manual signature to IP address?? Lmatt123 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. The change was made by another editor, not by me, which is why I addded the note. I imagine the basis for the change was that a signature should reflect the account that made the post. A better way for you to handle it would have been to add your name to the IP signature. In any event, it's always better to log in when you edit Wikipedia. BTW, what's your relationship with User:Jamescur?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for the input Bbb23. I am not a very active editor on here and can use all the help I can get. Sometimes I find other Wiki editors unnecessarily contentious and unhelpful towards newer contributors, so I really appreciate your help. Not much of a relationship with User:Jamescur other than that we work at the same firm. Regards. Lmatt123 (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC).

And now for something completely different...

It seems like you have a lot of negativity on your talk page right now, Bbb23, so I just wanted to wish you a great weekend! Try to do something fun. ;-) 68.197.237.22 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Input?

Talk:That '70s Show#Redirect all That '70s Show character pages to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.24.163 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notices of the WP:AEGS can now be left by any editor

According to this change by User:TParis. So now the language of {{Austrian economics enforcement}} is parallel to WP:AC/DS, but with one extra clause unknown to the AC: "This notice is effective only if logged at WP:AEGS." In Arbcom-land the logging is a clerical matter, so far as I know, and is not a prerequisite for later action. In their system the person is notified once the message is left on their user talk, and anyone can log, either at the time or later.

This message is brought to you by the Department of Crossing the Ts and Dotting the Is. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on AN only involved the specific matter of whether an administrator had to do it or not. So I only adapted the template with that in mind.--v/r - TP 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TP's change didn't affect the requirement that the notification be logged. He just changed, per consensus, that the notification could be given by anyone. Also, as I understand it, the requirement that the notification be logged to be "effective" is not really new. It may not be consistent across all ArbCom cases, but, for example, the new policy being discussed at Wikipedia:AC/DSR#Alerts says, "Alerts must be logged," although at the same time the logged wikilink says, "While failure to log an alert, an edit notice or a sanction, does not invalidate it, repeated failures to log may result in sanctions for the issuing editor or administrator." A current example of ArbCom sanctions that I'm most familiar with, WP:ARBPIA, says, "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans." So, what I conclude from all this is the notice doesn't have to be logged to be "effective" but it really, really should be logged.

So, here's my proposal, change the template from "This notice is effective only if logged at WP:AEGS" to "This notice must be logged at WP:AEGS" or "This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS." If the three of us can agree on the change, I don't see that another community proposal is required to implement it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

'This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS' sounds the best. It is *normal* to do the logging, but I don't think it's a fatal error to forget. If I'm reading a user talk page and I happen to notice a warning that was never logged, I'll go back to the case and do it, and append the date of the original warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

done.--v/r - TP 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions concerning Bess Myerson's divorces and marital status

If you look at the info box in Bess Myerson's article, you will see that she was divorced from both Allan Wayne and Arnold Grant. I verified this informaton in several Internet biographies relating to Bess. Myerson never remarried following her second divorce.

Two of the Best web sites dedicated to Bess Myerson can be found at the following links:

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/myerson-bess

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0616898/bio

In a published interview, I remember Myerson saying that she had failed in her two marriages. Also, circa 1977 I saw Bess in person with ex New York City mayor John Lindsay at a town-hall meeting in the Bronx. She was an excellent speaker who had a superior command of the English language and an extensive knowledge and background in politics.

I don't think that it's necessary for the information on Myerson's marital status to be verified. When I add content to an article, I usually know what I'm talking about. Anthony22 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

All information at Wikipedia must be verifiable. We don't take the word of editors (I'm not saying you're wrong). WP:BLP articles are even more sensitive to these requirements than other articles. I've therefore adjusted the infobox to match what we have in sourced material (also the first marriage goes first in infoboxes). If you can find reliable sources for more material about her first or second marriages, it can be added with sources. By the way, IMDb is not a reliable source, particularly for biographical data.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BBb

Today I thought of you, Benjamin Britten's birthday, on the Main page, I added a Te Deum with good memories of singing the piece ;) and the next will follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What a lovely example of your work here, Gerda. Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! #3, written on a sudden idea on his birthday: A Boy was Born ;) - looking forward to Christmas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed the note on top, sad to see it. Seele, vergiss sie nicht - Soul, don't forget them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's very touching, Gerda, thanks, we will never forget her. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We sang the premiere of the organ version with a friend in the audience who was dying from cancer of the pancreas, - I will never forget that. It was the last time he left home, he died 4 weeks later, and the recorded music was part of his funeral, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

My condolences. v/r - TP 15:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A belated thanks, TP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The presence of loved ones in our lives is but a temporary gift. Best wishes for courage in this difficult time. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet, it's always nice to see you on my talk page, even during sad times. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My sincere condolences and compassion. Life is too short, and we must have pure hearts and do the right thing by others!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's good of you to stop by, Worldedixor, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please respond on MY talk page.

You deleted my "TASVideos" page and COMPLETELY ignored my reason NOT to delete it. NO-ONE responded to it. Just tell me why my reasoning is wrong. Don´t make your own reason, base it on MY reason.

Otherwise, just put the page back the way it was when I made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadisonGrundtvig (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 5,000 whole users?!?!? Wow! Obviously a speedy keep, right? No ... that really is NOT a notification of notability for a website whatsoever. Your other argument was a question about another article existing, which is never a valid argument. The sole source you used was the website itself...which also is not a reliable source. I'm sure you mean well, but as you can see, there was no option but to delete that "article" ES&L 21:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Intimidating

[39] Was I coming across as intimidating? I'll have another look when I've had some sleep, but I'm not seeing that now, and it certainly wasn't my intention.

I've no problem with you closing that - it was an unruly mess - assuming you're not one of them, of course. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the above. You have my sincere condolences. Take care. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad you're okay with the closure. Sleep is good () - I'm pretty tired myself these days. Take care (and thanks for the addition).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, but your close of the thread has been reverted by Sandy. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Company of Arts Scholars

I had just got the Company of Arts Scholars page reinstated from Keilana and asked that it not be removed again as I was about to start editing it and gave all the reasons why it should stay and you choose to remove it, Please tell me why when I can convince one person to let it stay and you then remove it an hour or so later, do you not realize the time that I am spending on this. Rydens (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Rydens

Keilana moved it to your user space. Generally, you should be able to edit it there without fear of deletion. I suggest that when you think it's ready, you submit to WP:AFC rather than move it directly into article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,
Thanks very much for your help on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. In answer to your question about IPs... the ones I found are not actively editing now, although I think Evlekis deliberately used one that geolocates to a different country, in order to throw the hounds off the scent. Anyway, thanks again for your hard work. bobrayner (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You did a lot of work in creating the report. I appreciated that. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your alleged clandestine plotting to have me banned

It has come to my attention via a concerned heads up from another user, ToFeignClef, that you have been maliciously plotting to have me banned off of Wikipedia through social media websites, such as AOL Instant Messenger (as shown here [40]). In your response to ToFeignClef on my talkpage, you DID NOT even deny the allegation; merely, you asked the user an oddly worded question of "Who and what is your basis for the statement? You also claim I've instant messaging with someone about AmericanDad. Who and what is your basis for the statement?" (as shown here [41] and here [42]) I was puzzled by this obfuscation. If the allegation was false, any other person would immediately jump in and deny it and gainsay his remarks; however, your response to him was limited to "Who and what is your basis for this question?" Pardon me if I find that to be entirely suspect. If in fact ToFeignClef is correct in his claims that you've been off site plotting to have me banned, I hope you understand that this is an unspeakable abuse of your adminship. I'll thank you to please explain. At this point, I'm worried that I could be the victim of a wrongful ban by you and am considering alerting another admin. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think you're jumping to conclusions, AmericanDad; obviously I can't speak for Bbb, but I would guess that Bbb, knowing that "no I'm not!" is just what someone who is actually doing it would say, is demanding the accusation be backed by evidence, which it hasn't so far. If the accusations are true, then there's a problem, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it unless such evidence is provided. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Come on AmericanDad, please tell me you're not daft enough to fall for the lamest trolling in the book. For starters, who even uses AIM nowadays? And that's the very least that is wrong with this ludicrous "leak"... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This may all just be a big misunderstanding. In their own rights, Bbb23 and AmericanDad86 have the capacity of being respectable editors and at this point, it's appropriate to give both parties the benefit of the doubt. I think it's possible somebody is trying to stir the beehive. Before anything else, ToFeignClef needs to give his account of what's going on, because it is true that it is a serious allegation and someone will get burned for it, just that it's a question of who. DarthBotto _talk•cont 01:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin can't ban anyone..they can block but that is up to the community just as bans are as well. Basically someone is stirring the pot, and who the hell cares if they were plotting it because refer to fact one, bans and blocks and be overturned by consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DarthBotto =), Writ Keeper, Luke, Hell in a Bucket, thank you all for your wise and well-informed feedback and happy editing everyone! AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Bbb23, looks like I owe you an apology. User talk:ToFeignClef has not bothered to explain his allegation made against you AT ALL, and it has now been nearly a week. In addition, the user hasn't even contested his block by trying to prove his allegation made against you since his indefinite block. I know the very first thing I'd do if I knew such a claim were true and were blocked over it is protest my head off and show proof. I guess I suspected the claims to be true as I've never known an editor who tries to sabotage another in the manner that ToFeignClef did you. It was vicious in a very peculiar sort of way. I've seen editors report other where unwarranted and run to the ANI noticeboards, but ToFeignClef's tactic is a new one. Weird editor ToFeignClef. Again, my apologies. Also, my condolences on your family adversity from last week. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, AmericanDad, and have a good Thanksgiving.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You too, Bbb23. ;) AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal attempt to end the dispute

If you have banished me from this talk page, as you have jps, then I apologize for contacting you here. This message is to fulfil a technical requirement and you needn't respond.

I have identified the following problems in your behavior:

1. Misuse of the 3RR. As explained earlier,[43] these are constructive edits which cannot be construed as warring or disruptive or misconduct in any manner. Penalizing such edits is against the aims of Wikipedia. If this interpretation of the 3RR were to be applied consistently throughout Wikipedia, all productivity would grind to a halt.
2. Failure to answer direct questions. When a user asks specifically what he is being penalized for, it is important to answer. The deletion of pleas to answer simple, direct questions[44] is alarming.
3. Failure to understand, or failure to explain, the discretionary sanctions warning. An administrator should be aware that the warning is for misconduct. Or if the meaning of the warning has somehow changed, an administrator should relate the information that the sanctions page is incorrect and that the warning is no longer for misconduct.
4. Failure to understand the basic principle that the accused has the right to understand the charges against him. When you penalize a user for something, the burden is on you to explain the actions the user did to deserve the penalty. When a user asks what a penalization is for, it is exactly the wrong attitude to say, "you tell me". The reason the user is asking is because the user doesn't understand. A "you tell me" attitude is disruptive and inflammatory.
5. Assuming bad faith. There is no way I could have possibly imagined that anyone could possibly interpret the 3RR in the manner you have asserted. It is so obviously against the intent of the rule. Hence the questions and the confusion. Yet you have claimed that I "understood" and was making "excuses". That is highly inappropriate and offensive.

vzaak (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick. This dispute has run its course. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the discretionary sanctions warning is for misconduct. In light of this information I expect a response, as the consequences of the warning are real. Putting aside all the behavioral issues listed above, you have made a simple mistake regarding the warning which adversely affects me and several others. Please correct it. Basic accountability is all that I am seeking, which can nowise be construed as non-stick-dropping. vzaak (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Home Alone

Home Alone 1-5 was rereleased on DVD in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp37 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And that unsourced "info" is important in the text of the article because?? ES&L 11:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

BITali--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)no

Hi,
I'd kindly ask you to please revert the deletion of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BITalino

It's as much advertising or promotion as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaspberryPi

hugoslv (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll WP:USERFY it for you if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please 21:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done User:Hugoslv/BITalino. I suspect you have a WP:COI, particularly because of the recently uploaded images at Commons, which is probably you. Wikipedia is not here to advertise your company (or however you're affiliated with the company). When you think the article is ready to be published, rather than move it back to article space, submit it to WP:AFC so you get some feedback.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Q

Bbb23, I did not attack anyone. The point is that if someday an editor comes along who Joe thinks is way below average, that is no reason to repeatedly revert that editor by edit-warring. Please restore my comment or tell me who I attacked. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Neljack. Given the context, even assuming that wasn't your intent, many editors familiar with the situation would interpret it that way. If your only goal is to obtain a promise from Joe to react differently in the future, that's fine, but surely you could find a better way to reword your question. Just a bit of irony that one of the issues in the ANI discussion is wording and how language is interpreted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll restore the comment with an explicit disclaimer that I'm referring to him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job on Joe's talk page (didn't you mean to have a not in your last comment just above ("not referring"))? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did, sorry.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Do you have nothing better to do than re-iterate what I have already advised others to do on the Asma al-Assad page? I have already asked (and personally already begun) conversation on the article's talk page to engage in dialogue on making a version that represents consensus among editors. However, as I have already notated, the issue of the Vogue piece was already heavily debated in Archives 1. But you know better than this, because surely, your memory does not fail you on our debates in regards to this very issue. Toodles.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Floquenbeam

Hello, please do not remove other people's edits from a talk page other than your own. Thank you pbp 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bbb23, I appreciate the concern. But just so this doesn't turn into more "evidence" of a grand admin conspiracy, it's OK to leave their posts there if it happens again. It's not the text that's on the talk page that's a problem, it's the constant pinging I get when I'm doing something else. Either I'm not around - in which case I don't care about their posts, because I won't be annoyed by the orange bar - or I am around, and I'll deal with it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. One less thing for me to do. Hope you're enjoying your holiday.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am indeed, hope you are too. Just got back from dinner at our friends' house, and I'm about to have another slice of mince meat pie that we brought home. I think I like that more than the turkey. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Sorry, you should impose everything on talk page before reverting it. Despite, you had the superior position on wiki that does justify everything you do is perfect. You should impose on the talk page before reverting, just see my actions and yours. You had remove all the basis info alongside with reliable sources and present an inappropriate tags. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm sorry I looked at what you were putting in the article in question and I understand you are trying your best, however honestly it's extremely and painfully evident that English is not your first language and that is probably at least a small part why you were reverted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis SPI

Hey Bbb23, you might be surprised by my comments there. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! I remember looking at the 2620 contribution page and not seeing the usual stuff at the bottom for an IP address, even an IPv6, but I figured it was some kind of glitch. I should have just clicked on User rights and I would have seen what hed done. Good for you. Have you ever seen anyone do this before?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Like the other account there, I've seen spoofed IPv4 addresses, but not IPv6. I suspect that we'll see more and more of it in the future unless MediaWiki is updated (or someone develops an abuse filter) to prevent it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

I'll keep an eye on it. The fundamental thing to me is that it's a signature issue, not a username issue, and our guideline on signatures says nothing about including, or not including, promotional or potentially promotional material (other than no xlinks) in signatures. Perhaps it should.

In any event, some other users have occasionally used promotional slogans (usually ironically or playfully) in their sigs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the discussion on the user's talk page, the policy does apply to signatures (see WP:IU ("The same criteria also apply to signatures.")).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	HA. Thanks for the laugh and the correction of my error on ANI. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Flop is an encyclopedic word.

The word flop is an encyclopedic word. I really can't figure out how come an so called un-encyclopedic word presented in the head description passed as a GA. It is quite odd so far?? ----> check Ranbir Kapoor --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^'Parce Que Vous Le Valez Bien! 19:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My condolences and a gift

I recently lost someone close to me as well, so you have my sympathy and empathy. You've gone through such hard times lately and all the while, people have been snapping at your heels like a pack of snarling wolves, without even having a clue of what you're going through. I hope that you have recognized my defense of you and appreciation of your work on Wikipedia. In the very least, please accept this token. DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		For your reserved tone and approach that is underlined with patience, while going through painful experiences, I recognize and reward you with the Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words and the lovely picture. Your previous comments have not gone unnoticed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 I am really saddened to learn about your loss and you have my sincerest and deepest condolences. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am shocked to learn about your loss as well. You have my condolences. Take care of yourself. Okay? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to hear this. Please accept my condolences, and if there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Dr.K., Sjones23, and Mastcell, thanks very much for your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My condolences as well, very sorry to hear that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mine as well. You are in my thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And mine. May you have loved ones and friends supporting you now. All the best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are with you Bbb, I'll keep an eye on your page and try to help out where I can. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Prayers are with you Bbb...funny how real life reminds us of what's really most important. Take care ES&L 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• I am sorry for your loss. Take care of yourself, and remember Wikipedia is just a website, and editing it just a hobby. Real life is more important. --John (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• "The darker the night, the brighter the stars" (Dostoyevsky).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• I may be thanking you as a group, but I read each individual comment and appreciate the sentiments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My condolences also, Bbb. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Mine too, Bbb. I hope things start to look up soon. Best wishes, AGK [•] 23:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you've had a good Thanksgiving. I haven't even gotten to celebrate it yet, given some home-based complications! Grr! :( DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Holland (composer)

Hello, Bbb23. When you full protected the page I said above, you forgot to add the protection template. Blurred Lines 19:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added the template. It's not something I fogot, though. Usually, a bot does it. Why sometimes the bot fails to do it is a complete mystery to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Which bot does that kind of work? Is it MiszaBot, because that bot hasn't made edits for months. Blurred Lines 21:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:lowercase sigmabot.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot might not be able to edit through full protection, come to think of it. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the bot be automatically be promoted to administration status so it could do that? Blurred Lines 05:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notification: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Veriss (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

'I think given the one-sided nature of the block we should end it now and move on.'

• From Jody B at 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC).
• Reduce to time served, since you're asking for other opinions.- Floquenbeam 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• You blocked the wrong guy.- TParis at TigerShark's talk page.
• That's a pretty strong statement on this whole situation.
• Persons who said unblock with conditions are still unblocks....William 12:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Instead of posting on User:Bbb23's talk page, you could have just notified them, then commented on WP:ANI. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I've heard by word of mouth that one of your loved ones has died. I send my condolences to you and your family. Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

William Levy (actor)

Hello, would you be so kind and explain to me why do you reverted my edition in William Levy (actor) article? As a fact the Telenovela Acorralada was starred by David Zepeda, not by William Levy. Regards. Eduardosalg (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First, the article doesn't say that Levy starred in the movie, just "appeared". Second, two films are listed in the same sentence, and it wasn't clear which film Zepeda referred to. Third, why did you pick Zepeda as opposed to the other stars in Acorralada? Finally, obviously English is not your native language. You can't says "starred by". You might say something like Levy appeared in x film, starring x. I would have fixed it, but I didn't think any of it was necessary, so I didn't bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you may fix all the other articles with the starred by text. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardosalg (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon

After a rather lengthy back-and-forth dialog on OTRS, I'm letting you know that I'm restoring talk page access on User talk:Commissioner Gordon to give him a chance to post a more thoughtful block request. Hopefully he will take my advice to heart. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

On OTRS? That's not the proper venue for that sort of thing. I also hope you know that he has socked since then under User:Commissioner Gregor. --Rschen7754 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, why wouldn't OTRS be the proper venue for appealing after talk page access has been revoked? That's what WP:GAB says. I understand that this is a CU block and that the possibility of unblocking is next to nil, but GAB doesn't make a distinction among the different kinds of blocks for talk page access issues. Obviously, no matter how civil any subsequent unblock request is, no administrator should unblock Gordon without approval from probably both me, ostensibly the blocking admin, and Reaper Eternal, who did the CU itself (Gordon is tagged as a CU block, even though I indeffed the account for other reasons before the SPI). See GAB ("Reviewing admins will usually defer to the blocking admin in a sockpuppetry-based block"). Also, GAB states that one of the things a sock should never do while blocked is engage in further sock puppetry ("Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time"). And yet here the sock did precisely that with the Gregor account.

All that said, I trust, Amatulic, that you will monitor Gordon's talk page and re-revoke talk page access at the first hint of abuse. For another admin to do so would probably constitute wheel-warring. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was the intention. I have spent a lot of email time with him, to explain how Wikipedia works, what is expected of unblock requests, assured him there's no conspiracy against him, even offered to review it before he posts it. I felt it was fair to give him a chance to post a better-informed unblock request. If he can do that without creating a WP:ROPE situation for himself, that would be great, since he shows potential as a productive contributor. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I think that OTRS and UTRS are being conflated here. GAB directs blocked users to UTRS, not OTRS. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that before my post above. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. It looked to me like the appeal would go to UTRS but be evaluated by the OTRS team. How does it actually work?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An appeal to UTRS is evaluated by an admin with a UTRS account. Some appeals require a CU, but most do not. I don't have a ton of experience with OTRS, but I don't think that there is any unblock-related ticket queue there. Other than having similar names, there is no relationship between UTRS and OTRS. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. In that case, Amatulic should re-revoke talk page access and explain to the user specifically what they must do. At the same time, some of the confusion here should probably be cleared up. When a blocked user clicks on Unblock Ticket Request System in GAB's lead, the UTRS page has a dablink at the top pointing to OTRS. I can see a user possibly linking there. Even assuming we leave the dablink in place because you get to this page other ways than from GAB, the OTRS page should probably have a similar dablink and perhaps even a statement somewhere that OTRS should not be used for unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear on otrswiki that OTRS is not for unblock requests. The issue is that not all admins can review material on OTRS (as quite frequently admins are declined), whereas they are generally guaranteed access to UTRS (both are completely different systems). This goes against transparency. OTRS isn't a venue to forum shop for an unblock - that should be directed onwiki, to UTRS, or to BASC.

Furthermore, I don't think there's any legitimate reason to have a string of 30-40 emails in any ticket, whatsoever, or to use it to coach people on how to be unblocked. That's not good OTRS work. --Rschen7754 22:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cobanas

Cobanas (talk · contribs) didn't respond to your request to respond and continues to add badly sourced material (so this is in part a content dispute and since he's started to use an IP to revert me I've taken it to WP:RSN. Note also this edit[45] which I mention at RSN as it reduces population numbers in an article in a way that contradicts the sources and makes the population of Assyrians in Iran smaller before a large number left because of the 1979 revolution than it is now. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Partial reverts, please

Hi.

Look, I know editing policy pages can be controversial but it would really help if you stuck with partial reverts that kept spelling fixes and such edits. I deliberately edit in distinct pockets for ease of BRD reverting to help doing this.

In the meantime, I understand that editing policy pages are not outright prohibited, is it? If you spot a problematic edit, we can always talk about it, right?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of your edits is acceptable without significant discussion and clear and broad consensus. Please stop changing the policy in this fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. That felt like a kick in the crouch, which, in this case, means it didn't hurt much.

As for "take to talk", we are in "talk" already. Let's begin. I am listening. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, take to the policy talk page or WP:VPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I will go to VPP for discussing policy changes, alright. Let's discuss my technical edits here, then I will see to VPP. Besides, every policy says discuss with the disputing party and you are the disputing party. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. ...every policy, including our subject of discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again.

You are silent but evidently online. Very well. I will gradually re-implement technical (not policy-altering) changes such the line break, the typo fix and removal of duplicate sentence, giving reviewers ample time to perform WP:BRD. Anytime you felt like talking, I will stop.

But please remember what you'd tell disruptive editors when you block them: That they should talk and engage in WP:DR. I am here exactly for that.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Active sanctions

Hey Bbb23, I was wondering if I have any active sanctions. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd question. What makes you think you do? I see nothing at WP:EDR doing a find on "Epicgenius", but I can't answer the question definitively.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You put me under a list relating to sanctions relating to Chelsea Manning a month or two ago. I believe it was under the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute case. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that was here, but it's a notification, not a sanction. Generally, a discretionary sanction requires an alert (notification) first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I don't want a sanction to reflect badly on me, so I was just wondering. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen is not a "Lobbyist"

Hello, I am sorry that I haven't been to this talk page before with my dispute. I AM Hilary Rosen and I am not a lobbyist. I WAS a lobbyist from 1987 to 2007. But I am not longer. Hilary_Rosenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Rosen This article about me would be more accurate if you defined my current occupation: Managing Director, SKDKnickerbocker where I am a public relations consultant and an on air Contributor for CNN: skdknick.com/about/hilary-rosen/

A "Lobbyist" is a very important term. It is a legally definable term which is incorrectly used in the article about me. And for further accuracy sake, defined my earlier years as a lobbyist from 1987 to 2003 with the Recording Industry Association of America and from 2004 to 2007 with the Human Rights Campaign. Here is the cite from the Senate Clerk database: Query for Hilary Rosen in U.S. Senate Clerk Lobbyist Registration database If that doesn't come through, it is easy to verify this information here: U.S. Senate Lobbyist Registration Query page and enter my name.

I greatly appreciate you pursuing this clarification. Thank you for your time! Hilaryrosen (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hilary, it looks like your post to my talk page spurred some activity on the article (there are a lot of editors who watch my talk page). I'll let the other editors try to sort things out. Perhaps you can let me know if you're happy with their changes. If not, feel free to post again here, although if you look at the top of this page, you'll see that my time is more limited than usual on Wikipedia. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb, I'm a bit surprised by your reaction to this. Ms. Rosen is coming forward in good faith -- openly declaring who she is -- to correct damaging factual errors in her biography. (I.e. stating that she "is" rather than "was" a lobbyist.) This is a simple factual (definitional) question, not one of analysis or interpretation. Shouldn't we adopt her preferred construction, per WP:BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

I'm one of the talk page watchers who was alerted by this note, but I did not take action. Rosen asserts that she has not been a lobbyist since 2007, but in April 2012 The Nation said she was effectively a lobbyist, though unregistered. That's why I left the complaint alone and did not act on it. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if Ms Rosen is telling the truth, a primary source (I.e. herself) is usually not reliable.Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never imply that Ms. Rosen is telling anything but the unvarnished truth, but what she posts here is not at all a reliable source for the encyclopedia. Her firm's website is closer to a source, albeit a primary one, but it would be original research to interpret whether the services offered there regarding influencing legislative processes is "lobbying" or PR work. I would encourage Ms. Rosen to use the article's TALK page to point us to reliable third party sources regarding the question. Jonathunder (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New section

You deleted the page - Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia - Why? It was written clearly what, the purpose of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it for two reasons. Apparently it's a wiki for discussing Chinese Buddhism. There was nothing in the article that indicated it had any claim of significance other than its existence. The second reason was it read like an advertisement with such phrases as "The Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia is a vast project that will take decades to reach its final potential and will continuously leverage the development of computer technology and the internet to reach this potential", "it is also a matter of fact that China has long history, the biggest Buddhist population in the world and tremendous potential to develop and preserve Buddhist teachings in the 21th century", "By giving a detailed overview of Buddhism will create the opportunity for future generations to continue building on this Encyclopedia further spreading awareness and the message of Buddha", "Our key aim is preservation, it is vital in these rapidly changing times to gather all available materials and translate and digitize.", and "The author and key contributor to the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia, Vello Vaartnou, has had this strong vision for many years".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Could use your eyes

The article Hilary Rosen might merit your attention. It is proposed to remove the 'lobbyist' characterization based upon the claims of wikipedia user claiming to be the subject of the bio. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

TheRaulRomero

Hey Bbb23, looks like we might have a bigger issue with User talk: TheRaulRomero, then I thought. After continuing his disruption following the edit warring block, then gave him another final warning. However, I was met with this response on my talk page. You know I kind of suspected it, since the user seems to have similar edit practices as other accounts that edit Lady Gaga/Miley Cyrus articles, but I am not a frequent patroler to the related articles where I would be able to pinpoint sockpuppets. Looks like something definitely needs to done here. STATic message me! 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I've blocked him for two weeks, but I need to determine how best to handle the sock puppetry admission. Please do me a favor and report any suspicions you have with respect to other accounts as I'm not familiar with these articles and don't really want to put all of them on my watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try my best, but do you know someone with Checkuser privileges? I am sure that, that would root up any sockpuppets. STATic message me! 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that without other evidence, all we have is the claim, and although I might be able to convince someone to do a CU on that alone, it would be preferable to have some evidence of similarities with at least one other account, whether it be articles, similarities in edits, similarities in styles - something. I do have talk page stalkers, though ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of "50 accounts", what I do see is an editor who edits from a number of very large dynamic IP ranges who switches IPs daily and edits both logged in and anonymously. If they do continue to cause disruption once the block expires (or, as I suspect will happen, use IPs to evade the block) whack-a-mole will unfortunately apply.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

STATicVapor, I have now attached TheRaulRomero to its likely master. I'm not sure how active you are with regard to the Miley Cyrus discography, but if you see additional suspicious activity please drop me a note. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

al jazari

hi couple of days ago i added a reliable reference to that article , but you blocked me ! this my source :

http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2011)] An early example of an automated, programmable musical instrument ensemble was described by al-Jazari (1136-1206) a kurdish scholar, inventor, artist, mathematician that lived during the Islamic Golden Age

check it & see by your self if i did any thing illegal ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cobanas, the only reason I'm not blocking you again is because you left this message here. You are edit warring on the article. You reinstated your version of the article as soon as your block expired. Whether you think you're "right" is immaterial. If you haven't self-reverted your last change before I'm back on wiki, you risk being blocked for longer than the last time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, in response to Cobanas unreliable source;

Steven R. Ness, is a Phd candidate in Music Information Retrieval - Machine Learning - Distributed Cognition [46]

Shawn Trail, is associated with the Dept. of Computer Science, University of Victoria [47]

Peter Driessen, is professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering [48]

Andrew Schloss, is a professor in Electronic & Computer Music, Musical Acoustics, Ethnomusicology [49]

George Tzanetakis, is a professor Associate Professor in the Computer Analysis of Audio and Music [50]

Therefore, this "paper" has been written by academics that have no specialization in the time period or area in question. As such this is not a reliable source in regards to ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

in response to kansas bear : that was an academic & reliable source from three professors in izmir university ( 12th international music information retrival conference) if you don't know let me tell you al jazari invented many music machines . all of the other sources which are pointing to his arabic roots are less important than this reliable source you removed this referenced issue .. i hope if you stop this edit war & regard to the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

it's better to look for a better reason to removing a resourced article by questioning three high level PHD holder professors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told that music specialists can't be used as a source for this? Nor is there any evidence the conference paper qualifies as a reliable source in any case, but that is a minor point just for future reference. Meanwhile you are attacking me on my talk page where you call me a pan arab, whatever that is, and a nationalist, while at the same time accusing me of removing a reference when in fact you hadn't added one to that article. You've been told you need to self-revert, I strongly suggest you take that advice. I'm not afraid of being reported anywhere by the way, as I'm right on this. The best thing to avoid being blocked is to self-revert and ask at WP:RSN about your source. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - I don't think this editor gets it at all. I just went to his talk page and see he wants me to take him to ANI so that my nationalism and editing under several accounts will be dealt with. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

at dear pan arab(dougweller) : 1)your source for his arabic ethnicity is written by john richard hayes it is about the islamic scientists but it didn't mention any thing about his arabic roots ! 2)richrard hayes was an irish code breaker during the WWII(LOL) 3)comparing him with three high level american PHD holders is quite funny 4)http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=oEjNaFiTyqUC&pg=PA35&dq=al-jazari&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=0M5yUcGNHY3Iswb6xYHoCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=al-jazari&f=false this source is never mentioned any thing about his arabic ethnicity !! it said he was a muslim inventor in the diyar bakir (kurdish city) 5)arabic language was the official langauge in that era 6)al jazari lived in the same era which the saladin the great (kurdish king of the middle east) was ruling over that area 7) i have plenty references which are clearly showing us that he was a kurdish : http://jutiagroup.com/20110225-robotics-part-1-%E2%80%93-where-are-we-today/ http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.htm http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/ 8)you have many other accounts which you are using them as "kansas bear" "عمر کلثوم" ....which are you sock puppet , this against the rules finally 9) i didn't remove any referenced article & i didn't do any thing against the previsions in the wikipedia , but you are keep " noising" over me because i'm a kurdish & you have personal issues with kurds (since you are an assyrian-arabic nationalist ) i hope if some body stop your games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do take me to WP:ANI for sock puppetry, etc when you get unblocked - it'll be a laugh. To clarify for others, I didn't add any sources about nationality to the article, but I did query leaving in a statement he was Arab, and Kansas Bear has recently said we should remove it, which I think is right. We should just call him a Muslim. Apologies to Bbb23 for all this. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera

Hi Bbb23 - Would you mind sharing your reasoning for deleting the subject's full name in the Early and personal life section? Per WP:COMMONNAME it is normal to use the subject's common name (Bill Clinton) in the title and Lead, and the full name in the body. The full name had been well cited, by a reference now deleted. I have replaced it with a citation in Vogue Magazine. If the missing citation bothered you, a better editor would have fixed it rather than delete correct and useful information.--Nixie9✉ 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I suuppose I could say that a "better editor" would not have have inserted the birthname of a BLP without a source, and a more honest editor would not have come here asking for my "reasoning" when it was already well-known to the editor, but both of those responses, although justified, would have been snippy, wouldn't they? Thanks for sourcing the name. Please don't bother responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was snippy, and I do apologize. Perhaps I am overly sensitize to being reverted when I am correct, but there is a technical shortfall. I suspect this is how a lot of new editors become discouraged. I wish you well. --Nixie9✉ 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I know that some editors think that before undoing something, one should look for sources, but it's a judgment call based on many factors. When it concerns WP:BLPs, I tend to be much more strict than in other articles, especially when, as here, it concerns vital statistics so to speak (name, age, birthplace, etc.). In any event, I didn't mean to discourage you. I know that Wikipedia can be an unfriendly place, but I didn't think my undo with an edit summary was harsh. Then again, I may be a bit jaded. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

Hi,

Yes, I do want my user and talk page protected. Yesterday, someone also added false information on my page.

Thankyou for the help,

I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinySanaz (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ShinySanaz, how long do you want the protection to last? In case it helps you, another editor's pages were similarly vandalized, and she chose one week. But you can pick whatever duration you want. Protection can also be changed at a later date if you request it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Alhazen

Would you be interested in protecting Alhazen? Rarevogel has continued to remove references and referenced information without discussion.[51][52][53] Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why me, Kansas Bear? Do I have any history with this article or the editor that I've forgotten about?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Bbb23,

A pretty much single purpose IP 146.90.47.98 has started an edit war over South African farm attacks here, which I don't want to engage in. I found this article a couple of days ago while on vandal patrol and notice that it did not represent the content of the sources it cites and that there is serious dispute about whether what is claimed in the article is actually occurring. I made the lead less WP:POV and I posted it here for help on improving its WP:NPOV. In doing some research on that article, I found Africa Check, which appeared notable so I wrote an article on it and submitted for a DYK. The IP nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa Check with additional comments here. My view is they need a little time out from editing. Cheers, I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is also evidence of socking, which I didn't notice at first but I have now pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa Check I am One of Many (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take any action at this point. The IP didn't edit war as they reverted only twice. I agree that the new account is obviously the same person as the IP, but that, in and of itself, doesn't indicate sock puppetry. Many editors start as IPs and then register. If the new account and the IP edit in tandem, that would be a different matter, assuming the editing is disruptive. I imagine, too, that the AfD springs from biased motives, but that shouldn't matter as the article would then be kept. Also, you've pointed out the issues at the AfD itself. Let me know if something further happens that might be sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me. I would like to add the the new IP/user do seem to know their way around more than would be expected from a genuinely new editor. I am One of Many (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Userspace deletion

User:Sitush/summary can be deleted now if you would care to do the honours. Since you know the background to the creation, it'll save me getting a knuckle-rap from some passing admin at CSD. I've gathered together what I need, formatted the stuff & now copied it to my PC. Apologies for taking a bit longer than I expected - I had a water burst over the weekend & got distracted fixing that & some sodden electrics. - Sitush (talk)

 Done. God, I hate plumbing problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Forget the plumbing - sorted that - but are you any good with roofs? I've got to finish re-roofing my place in Wales on Weds ... which is less than 24 hours after I'm told when my hip replacement is going to happen. I'm doing things "arse about face" as they say in these parts. Which might also be how I'll look if I fall 40-odd feet to terra firma. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not personally any good with roofs (I'm scared of heights), and I'm nowhere close to Wales. If you're in the middle of re-roofing your place yourself, I suggest delaying the hip replacement or getting someone else to finish the roof - not that I'm a doctor, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

True Torah Jews Deletion

Hi, I was part of creating True Torah Jews page, but was deleted within a few days, its a legit organization. with so many ways to proof its legitimacy, what can i do to keep to page? BTW, truetorahjews.org/wikipedia was removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover321 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the relationship between you and Natsmith (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Abbington

I was just adding to the article, I found the information of IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007893/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source for biographical material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Armaan Kohli

Please, view the history of Armaan Kohli, a fellow user is exercising destructive edits on the page, i kept on reverting it simultaneously but that pisses me off as you had previously warned me i can't perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24-hour period. So what next, huh! can you guide me?? --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 13:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has joined the fray, which helps. You have already reverted more than three times within a 24-hour period, but you might get away with it because of the nature of the change the other editor is making to the article. I suggest that when you revert in this kind of situation, you put in your edit summary not vandalism, as you did, but BLP violation, which is more precisely what the other user is doing by insisting on an unsourced birthdate rather than a sourced one. It's a bit more complicated than usual as the subject is apparently claiming one age whereas his father is saying a different one. As always, the best way to deal with the problem is to discuss the issue on the article talk page and advise the other editor of the discussion. I left an edit warring warning on the user's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

U Tennessee football

There is a vandal that you blocked a while back and has arrived again. I see you blocked them before I don't know what this person get's out of changing the numbers they are changing. The IP is 68.53.242.152 (talk · contribs · count). MDSanker 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for six months and rolled back all his recent changes. If I missed anything, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Hi, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about trying to participate in editing this page with Earl King Jr refusing to engage in a respectful and reciprocal dialogue and willfully confusing any edit he doesn't make or like with lack of neutrality while displaying a total lack of neutrality himself? Between his refusal to even acknowledge comments or points of view he finds inconvenient and your promise to ban anyone who doesn't respect the process while apparently having little to say about his conduct in the manner I have just described I'm apprehensive about touching the page at all. So yeah, I am all ears as to how to proceed. Thanks. Ites76 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any edits to the talk page for a long time. I thought we've been through this before, but you need to engage in discussion with Earl, and if that doesn't work to your satisfaction, use the dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)