User talk:Bbb23/Archive 26

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skynyrdman

I don't think the account is the owner of the farm either. It's a meatpuppet of the owner. That's a form of sockpuppetry according to WP:SOCK. If SPI is not the right place to report a blocked user using a paid editor, then where should it go? I can't believe that a blocked editor can evade his block by paying someone to make the edits. Meters (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I know meat puppetry is mentioned in the policy, but SPI doesn't normally block someone as a sock for being a meat puppet, not that I'm sympathetic to meat puppets myself. I understand your point, but I have very little guidance for you. If you think what the user is doing is contrary to policy, I'd take them to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I don't think I'll bother taking it to ANI. In the two weeks it took to get a simple "wrong forum" answer the paid editor has stopped editing and has blanked his talk page. I may raise the question of how to handle these situations in the future if I can figure out where to ask it. I won't be at all surprised if I'm told the appropriate forum is indeed SPI. There's no point in including meat puppetry in the definition of sockpuppetry if SPI won't act on as clear a case as this. It seems like a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Meters (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Hi, I saw that you'd blocked User:70.74.161.145 as a block evading sock - User:70.74.181.52 seems to be another one. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomgglass

Hey there. I noticed you blocked a handful of accounts as sockpuppets of Tomgglass, but I don't think that's actually the case here. For the Tomgglass and Tgglass accounts, there was never any overlap in their edits, and the first account stopped editing a few weeks before it was blocked, so I think the claim of a lost password is legitimate. I know how the other two editors, Joncmaxwell and CarlJJarvis, came to create their accounts, and can attest that they are different people, not sockpuppets, who were made aware of the TX election page infobox dispute off-site. I think this is a classic case of earnest but policy-ignorant editors stumbling around and stepping on toes with no ill intent. I don't think any of them desire to harm the project. I hope you'll take that into consideration. I'm going to ping @C.Fred: since he has been involved in this as well. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of all this as is C.Fred. It's kind of complicated, and at this point I'm in a holding pattern on the issue. I do think that if Jon is unblocked, Carl should be as well, but I'm not sure yet what's going to happen or when. I know C.Fred has been having an ongoing discussion with Jon on Jon's talk page. Not sure what C.Fred's latest thoughts are. (The first two accounts will not be unblocked, at least not in the foreseeable future.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not sure I see how there is an abuse of multiple accounts situation with the first two accounts. I could totally understand a temporary block for edit warring, but indefinite seems disproportionate. Thanks for the reply. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'll support an unblock of Jon is that he has been willing to engage and gain a feel for the guidelines. As for the Carl account, if he engaged the same way, I'd support an unblock for him too. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred, I'm leaning toward unblocking both accounts. I wouldn't impose any conditions in the unblock, but I would warn the users that disruption may be met with blocks. With respect to Jon, would that work for you? As for Carl, I personally don't mind unblocking him now with the same warning. However, if you believe a discussion is needed first, then I'm okay with that, but I think you should let him know on his talk page (I've already left him a brief message in response to his unblock request to be patient). I'll wait to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with an unblock of both with no conditions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, C.Fred, you didn't say whether you objected to the warning, so I'll assume you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. One final note: thanks for your hard work in all this, C.Fred.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You around?

Need advice. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exhausted (insomnia) but here.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Vomit inducing words!"

I happily saw your intervention on an article's talk page on the use of inappropriate words; thank you. Regrettably that user is not the only one who acts in this manner. Please see this. Note that there are other examples (like calling other users' edits as "disgusting") but I don't like to complain. Simply wanted to show you another example as I saw your sensibility on this matter. Thanks for your recent action and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't like to complain - yet it does not seem to stop you. And you dig up 4 month old posts to do it! As I told you those 4 months ago, if I want to make a one-off characterisation of a public statement by a Turkish politician as "vomit inducing" I think I can - as far as I know that individual is not a Wikipedia editor and so not protected by rules of civility and assuming good faith. Your posts back then, on the other hand, ignored those Wikipedia rules from the outset by assuming bad faith and displaying a battleground mentality. You accused an editor of making disruptive edits because they affected your edits, threatened that editor, then falsely accused me of being that editor because I found your edits unacceptable for undue weight reasons. I could have raised a complaint about you at that time for making false accusations of sock-puppetry. But, unlike you, I actually don't like to complain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash something that occurred four months ago, either, but I will offer a little advice. You're conflating two issues, one is personal attacks against other Wikipedians, and one is WP:BLP violations. Ahmet Davutoğlu is a BLP, and BLP policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia, including talk pages. In short, you should keep your negative opinion of the man to yourself; it has no place here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Phineas and Ferb (season 4)

There is vandalism happening on a page on this wiki by IP Address 66.87.82.242 and he keeps changing the format by removing the Assistant Directors and Story Writers so it won't be, quote "cluttered". The format before he removed Assistant Directors and Story Writers was fine and on the Phineas and Ferb (season 3), Phineas and Ferb (season 2, and Phineas and Ferb (season 1). Please block him so he will stop ruining the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilLair (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Bbb23, Quick question. Is the article Women Against Feminism covered by men’s right’s sanctions? There’s a rumor that the campaign was started and is contributed to by MRA’s as mentioned in article. I just want to be clear which revert rules apply to this article, and was wondering if sanctions do apply, if a 1RR warning should be placed on article talk page so people aren't unsure which rules apply. Thanks --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been too busy to respond to this, and I probably won't get to it today. I hate it when someone says they have a "quick question"; that usually means it's not quick. I'll try to get to it later. If I haven't after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, feel free to prod me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no immediate problem on page but there has been some prior reverts of men's rights related content which seems to have died down now. I'm really only asking because I'm editing page and I want to make sure I don't violate sanctions. To save time I'll try to answer my own question. If I understand correctly, the text directly regarding the men's rights movement would be subject to 1RR, and the rest of the article would be a non-quick judgement call and require more careful evaluation. Does that sound right? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually, that's correct. The problem is with the procedures when an entire article isn't subject to sanctions, only part of it. The framework isn't set up to easily handle those situations. I haven't had the energy to address the issue because I think it might necessitate another discussion at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice

So, we have an apparent new sockmaster with an apparent IP sock and a username sock. MarlovianPlough, 95.149.117.206 and TheFrontDeskMust. Goal seems to be to promote the Owle Schreame Awards. MO consists of gutting the Ian Charleson Awards article so that the See Also section (which contains the added link now to Owle Schreame Awards) is more visible. I've posted initial vandalism warnings on MarlovianPlough and 95.149.117.206 pages. Can you help? Should I file a sock report? ANI? Can you put Ian Charleson Awards on your Watch list? Thanks for any help. EDIT: Additional socks (meats?) appear to be Xanadu Reacher, 31.50.191.161, Evadlion, Refereee, 86.165.83.4 and PeggyMa, and whoever created the initial article on Owle Schreame Awards (I think it was Xanadu Reacher but can't tell), which was deleted; the current article is a redo of an article that has been deleted via prod, speedy, or AfD at least once. Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you think you have enough evidence (I haven't reviewed the edits), you should file a report at SPI. If you think all those named accounts are socks, the alleged master would be Xanadu Reacher (they are the oldest account).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply markup problems

Hi. In case you’re not aware, adding a colon at the beginning of a reply like ::::* creates multiple single-item lists rather than a single nested list. It creates a whole new <dl> tree around a single bullet list. Replies like the following:

::**
::***
::****

add to the lists created by the preceding markup rather than closing them and creating entirely new ones. You can’t really tell the difference visually, but being inconsistent with them is semantically weird, and can cause issues with things like screen readers announcing multiple new lists with each post. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're way out of my depth. The amount I know about wiki mark-up you could put on the head of a pin. You're right, though, that visually it looked fine to me, but even putting aside the mark-up issues, I don't even know what you mean by "screen readers announcing multiple new lists with each post." I don't promise to follow your suggestions, though, to the extent I even understand them, not because I think you're wrong, just because I know I'll forget.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Screen readers are an accessibility product for sight-disabled people. They help them use computers by reading the screen to them. I can try and explain the list markup, but if you’d rather not bother, feel free to tell me to shut up.

: and * and # at the beginning of a line each create a different type of HTML list item. This is a bulleted list:

Markup	Renders as
* Something * Another thing * Something else	Something Another thing Something else

If you use multiple *s, it makes a list inside the list. Here, I add a bulleted sub-list to the first item:

Markup	Renders as
* Something ** A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' * Another thing * Something else	Something A sub-thing relating to Something Another thing Something else

If I’m not helping or I’m just being confusing, or if you’d just rather I not, I’m sorry and I’ll stop. But please let me know either way! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll let you keep going at least for a while. It's very kind of you, actually. I got the part about the screen reader. I got the bulleted list part. I still don't understand the mixing of colons and asterisks. I've seen them mixed in different ways, but I think you did something like :::*:, which I don't think I'd seen before, and it confused me. Also, I'm kinda practical, so it was harder, too. If I have ::::* and I want to nest a comment below it, I copy it and paste it and then insert a colon anywhere before the asterisk. I wasn't sure what to do with your blend. Back to you, teach.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what you want to do is insert a colon (or asterisk, whichever) at the end, just before your reply. It’s easier to show why with numbered lists. This one has an indented list (the colon markup) inside the numbered list:

Markup	Renders as
# Something #: A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else	Something A sub-thing relating to Something Another thing Something else

The first character on each line is #, so each line is an item of the same numbered list. Adding a colon after with #: means the numbered item contains an indented list.

But if it’s instead marked up like this:

Markup	Renders as
# Something :# A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else	Something A sub-thing relating to Something Another thing Something else

This is equivalent to:

Markup	Renders as
# Something :# A sub-thing relating to ''Something'' # Another thing # Something else	Something A sub-thing relating to Something Another thing Something else

That’s three separate lists. You can tell by looking at the first character on each line; changing that character between lines tells the wiki to end the list. There’s a numbered list of one; a separate indented list containing another numbered sub-list of one; and a numbered list of two.

Longer strings of colons and asterisks just mean more lists inside other lists. So :::*: would come about this way:

Markup	Renders as
Hey guys you should change this. -Some User (talk) : Change what? - Some other guy (talk) :: This thing over there on that page. -Some User (talk) ::: Oh, you have a good point! - Some other guy (talk) :::* '''Disagree''', and I need a bullet point! --Someone else (talk) :::*: But I don't like bullets. -Some User (talk)	Hey guys you should change this. -Some User (talk) Change what? - Some other guy (talk) This thing over there on that page. -Some User (talk) Oh, you have a good point! - Some other guy (talk) Disagree, and I need a bullet point! --Someone else (talk) But I don't like bullets. -Some User (talk)

If you were to look at the rendered HTML markup for those last two lines, you’d see a bulleted list inside those preceding indented lists, and then an indented list inside that bulleted list inside the preceding indented lists. But they’re all part of the same outer list, because each line begins the same way as the one before.

The bottom line is… it’s actually really pretty weird to use list markup for discussion replies. So I’m kind of eager for Flow. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, @174.141.182.82, I meant to thank you for this last post, which I even understood, but I've been so busy and a little over extended that it slipped through the cracks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear I was able to be helpful! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are mentioned in an email t to wikimedia.org.

I mentioned your comments on my talkpage in an email of feedback/complain to info@wikimedia.org Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Need your advice

Is there a reportable personal attack around here and where should I direct it? I think I am getting bored of being harassed and insulted. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the edit summary. There used to be an etiquette noticeboard, but it was eliminated, leaving you pretty much with boards like ANI, which, generally, have little interest in personal attacks unless they're outrageous. This one isn't nice, of course, but I doubt it rises to a level that would grab most editors at ANI and would probably result in some bickering about civility but no action. Someone might be willing to give the user a warning. If I were you, I'd ignore the editor, which tends to be the most efficient way of handling such comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was exactly what I was trying to do until a couple of days, but I am afraid my patience also has a limit. In fact when I see users pre-disposed to fight, I change my direction and go somewhere else in this huge WP. I think I will continue to do so. Thank you very much again and regards. Sorry for taking your time. Take care. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

I very appreciate with your comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee788 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some cookies to you!

Help

help me with this--- en.wikisource.org/wiki/School_Song_of_New_R._S._J._Public_School --prathamprakash29 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning!

Hello there Bbb23! Recently you deleted a few articles by User:Abyssal after I tagged them for no content. They have left me a message on my Talk page asking that I have that undone. This is not, however, a request to do so. In fact, I believe that these articles, even if they were in the middle of some big project, should not have been on the Wiki and left in the sandbox. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the "no content" policy. Thanks so much for your help! Kobuu (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with you or I would not have deleted them. WP:CSD#A3 states: "Any article consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections" may be deleted per this criterion. As I recall, the only thing in the article was a single reference (and some portals) that was not connected to the body. I therefore construed that ref as the equivalent of an external link and deleted it. In addition, there was at least one other administrator who deleted a similar article. Indeed, all the articles followed almost precisely the same framework. Effectively, the user was cluttering up article space with pages that couldn't even be called proper stubs. He should create them in his user space until they're ready for article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Bbb23, thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for. Basically just the admin support and reaffirmation of the delete. Thank you again. Kobuu (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Damián80

I notice you were involved in a recent AN3 discussion concerning Damián80. One of the issues that you noticed, his almost incomprehensible English, seems to be an ongoing problem. As a result of this discussion at Template talk:Infobox television I did some cleanup at Marido en alquiler,[1] but he's been fighting me all the way. There seems to be no willingness to even attempt to understand MOS:TV and he's accused me of WP:OWN, as well as making a couple of what can best be described as "dummy spit" reverts.[2][3] I've tried explaining on his talk page and mine but it seems to be going nowhere. He keeps making the same silly edits, like restoring "px" to the infobox (The Lua code called by the template doesn't require it), restoring {{imdbname}} to the prose, restoring WP:REDNOT violations etc. As soon as one thing is fixed, something else pops up. He seems to believe that the way things are done at the Spanish Wikipedia is the way we should do it here, and doesn't want to accept that there is a difference. When he disagrees, he simply reverts. This seems to be similar to Musicfan877's complaint and I'm really not sure what to do about it. It's turning into a long edit war and we don't want that. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the user comes out of nowhere, saying "Marido en alquiler" is a TV series, and thus must be edited in the same way they do in the items as "Austin & Ally", "Jessie" and "Sam & Cat". So did this add red links because it has always done it and did not know it could not be done, then do again and I reversed my edits, add links to IMDb because I had seen elsewhere, but this same user told me he can not, so I went back to do, then came yesterday and do what he wants and goes and change the way in which I was working. Come and place a template for others to do what he does not want to do. I'm not saying that fits the translation or to make arrangements, but the section of the cast has always been well edited for years, because I'm on wikipedia since 2012, clearly I'm doing what he does not want to do, and then comes and changes the way I was editing. For from time to time it owned the item, and any issue that I would like him. So as I see that no one does what the template says, I myself went to work in the article, to please him. And nothing seems no issue anything you like.--Damián (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Since posting here there has been another revert without explanation, reintroducing the tables.[4] It really is impossible to collaborate with this user. I'm not sure whether to take this to AN3 or ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think the problem is fixed, I just hope this article will users demanding the same article. Because it's uncomfortable having to do what he does not want to do.--Damián (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. This edit solved a lot of the issues but you reverted that.[5] Since then a lot of edits have been made and it's now necessary to clean everything up for a third time. And then there was this edit that had to be made to again remove content that had no consensus. You've said the article is fine now but you've effectively said this previously, only to revert when somebody dares edit it away from your preferred format. Today alone you've removed the cleanup tag again while problems existed and restored the motto that had already been removed. I was going to do some more cleanup on the article but I really don't see the point because I fully expect to see it reverted, as it has so many times before. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion?!!

Hello, I just wanted to ask why did you delete the page of the well known Martyr Ziad Bakir? And how come the reason was "insignificance"? Would you please make at least a simple web search for his name? We would appreciate your help creating a page with his name as it is quite important. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Bakir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folleesperance (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't help you. Your editing is disruptive. It's promotional (who's "we"?). You commit copyright violations. You remove tags that you have no right removing. You're not here to improve Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello, would you be so kind an help me and undo the revert edition by Damián80 in the article Lucía Méndez.

In the past month of May I reverted a vandalism in the birthday date; on August 7 he undid me and caused setting up a wrong date as a result of his action, and now the article has three different years of birth.

I have tried to fix it again, but he undid my editions twice; I do not want to start a edit war and of course not to violate the three-revert rule; for that reason I ask your kind assistance.

The article in es.wiki has the reference, but it is in spanish; you can check it if you like.

Finally an just for the record, I am an administrator in es.wiki and just a non regular editor in this Wikipedia.

Thank you so much for your attention. Eduardosalg (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, pardon me for jumping in, but I saw this note, and I've added the sourced dob to the article. @Eduardosalg: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Eduardosalg (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's lovely when something gets resolved in my absence. Thanks to both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Good point about the Arbcom notification reversals. As a clerk, I verified that all the notifications were made, but did not check to see that they were still on the page. I'll amend my own personal procedure (mulling whether to modify the clerks procedure page). Of the four listed parties (other than filer) two are inactive, Toddst1, and Rlevse. You are obviously aware, and AGK added a note to DS's page that the case is restored. It seems headed for a decline, so I think it would be pointless bureaucracy to restore a notice on two retired editors about the time the case is declined. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick, what you decided is fine. I simply wanted to bring it to the attention of one of the clerks. It was a small point given the direction the request was and is taking. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously, if it takes a different turn, will have to revisit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:VeNeMousKAT

PhilKnight and I are feeling inclined to give this one another chance. As the blocking admin, what's your opinion? Peridon (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Peridon, I respect both your and Phil's views, not to mention Daniel Case's. Go right ahead, and thanks for checking with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Potcoin page

Hi

I would like to create a new page about Potcoin. I realise you deleted the last one for reason A7 and I completely agree, it was incomplete and didn't have great sources cited. Before I start on the new page on Wikipedia I will make sure it is first completed offline and will then upload it to wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know first as that last, essentially, 'draft' entry was deleted and this is the same topic.

Kind Regards, Erika Papdi Potcoin Ambassador UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eristas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn, and that withdrawal has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

This is with reference to the reversion that you made on 8 August 2013. I had made the change after leaving a note on the talk page in July. In my view, registration as a voter does not confer party membership, and ought to be distinguished as such. Judicial ethics prevent SCOTUS judges from being members of any political party. Thank you for your attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean 2014. I responded on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23

I am sure you have a good reason to revert my 2 questions on ISIS Talk page that I made in good faith using the terms used in the UN Security Council resolution (this is verifiable). Can you help me understand the WP rules against my discussion or was it an honest error? Worldedixor (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't use the article talk page to express your personal opinion, even if others agree with that opinion. The talk page is to be used to discuss changes to the article, edits to the article, etc. The section header only confirmed what you were doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can see how you may have seen it as such. Not a problem. What is in your opinion the best way to ask questions on the talk page to initiate changes to the article, edits to the article about countries that actually support ISIS? Worldedixor (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add material to the article and discuss it first on the talk page, then propose the material with reliable sources supporting the proposed changes and hopefully other editors will comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. I can do that for the 1st question but I was hoping that someone may be able to tell me if they knew of a country that actually supports the Islamic State, publicly I mean. I am aware from our intelligence sources that wealthy individuals are secretly financing them but not their countries. Worldedixor (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's dicier, and I'm going to dodge the question for the following reason. Given the notoriety of these events, I think that if there were a country that supported the ISIS, you'd be able to find it in a reliable source. So, I think it's a pointless question. Does that make sense?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes.Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up

You are the one who reverted my edit without even an attempt at explanation. This is not appreciated. By what authority are you intimidating me with blocks? Do you own Wikipedia?--71.39.6.142 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are non-neutral and inflammatory, and your edit summaries and other comments are even worse. As I stated on your talk page, if you persist, you risk being blocked. If you really think your edits have merit, propose them on the article talk page, but don't add them to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it

Please check out [6] now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Sobchak0 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Rev. Robert N. McIntyre

Last night I created the page for Rev. Robert N. McIntyre. It was cited for A7. The page was not yet complete but I do believe that person in question did provide significance, especially to the Reformed Episcopal denomination. He not only founded 4 plus churches but also a predominant summer camp run by the denomination. Lastly, he was the author of a major doctrinal publication regarding ministers in the domination and their roles. This is mentioned on the Reformed Episcopal Wikipedia pages and its significance. He is mentioned on almost any Reformed Episcopal historical record and on many websites of the churches as an inspiration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalmiller (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI CLerk page

I have never opened an RFC it states on the page to ask for help and someone will help so I'm doing that for the second time. Will you please guide me to what I'm missing? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrain myself, partly because of my previous positive interactions with you, but you're being incredibly obtuse. First, the process page tells you to include "a brief, neutral statement of the issue" (bolding in original). Do you call your lengthy statement brief? Neutral? That's the most important thing you're missing. It also tells you to code the RfC (yours ended up in unsorted). In my view, you should have coded it "policy" as that's the category closest to what it is. Forget about all that. Why don't you step back, take a break, do whatever? Pushing this is not going to help you, and don't tell me you're doing it on principle. You should know by now that one's own view as to what's important at Wikipedia is worthless unless there is a sufficient number of other members of the community who agree with you. But I don't think this is going to get through to you, more's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely that more then my opinion is needed, that's why I included the community and not just the checkusers and clerks. I thought if it ends up just being me then hey that's the way it goes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I just have a big problem with hiding behind email walls. I'm a big enough person to say what I mean on wikipedia and it bothers me when others can't back up their own opinions. I am more so hurt by the rationale behind then not being able to help out. I will let you know that in my personal life I was raised a Jehovah's Witness because I had a rough youth I was trying to reform and go back to the religion, well I didn't know that they had canceled the meeting that day and were remodeling the kingdom hall. This is an event when people are encouraged to help and donate time, but because I didn't have a specific rank within that congregation I was turned away. I never went back after that because it seriously hurt me that people willing to help was treated so callously. This situation is a lot similar except in this case I just wish I had the respect from people to actually say what they feel and not hide behind. You can believe what you want. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your childhood experience, and I have little doubt in your sincerity, but Wikipedia is, like so many things, not always "fair". Think of it like applying for a job and you're turned down but no one will tell you why. It's frustrating but there's not much you can do about it. Also, it might help if you don't think of this as a lack of respect but a conventional practice that isn't going to change just for you. In other words, you're not being singled out. Anyway, no matter what, I hope you feel better. It's easy to forget on Wikipedia that there are real human beings with feelings lurking behind these posts. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Solj

User talk:Jacobkennedy is back to socking. There's no need for a sock investigation since he has already admitted it. AcidSnow (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

AcidSnow, if you mean the IP, I've blocked it for a month. What's "Solj"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant sock. Anyways, thanks! AcidSnow (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Drmies

Hey, I'm not sure you intended to to this, but it's considered bad form for a third-party to remove one editor's comment from another's talk page, as you did at User talk:Drmies. betafive 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also bad form to template a regular over a comment that was not in any way a personal attack. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguably so, but it's not a policy violation (as removing another editor's talk-page comments from a third-party's talk page is.) Who asked you again? betafive 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who asked you" is not a good way to address anyone on this wiki. I've noticed that you appear to be trying to pick fights with people, which isn't part of building the encyclopedia. Please consider having a nice walk, a sandwich, or something that makes you happy. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking seriously, because your suggestions aren't helpful. Look, I'm not trying to pick fights with people, but content and policy disagreements happen. I don't know why some choose to turn them into interpersonal issues, but I'm not responsible for the actions of other people. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Beta, I've seen instances of editors A and B posting to a talk page or ANI at the almost exact same time. A posts first, B then posts, but in the process B's post causes A's post to disappear. Done it myself on one occasion and had at least one case of an editor doing the same to a post of mine....William 03:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm not accusing User:Bbb23 of maliciousness, but it's still careless. betafive 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If a glitch happens and material gets removed without the (second) editor being informed, how is that careless? Are you expecting every editor to review a diff of every edit they make, after making it, to check that there has not been a glitch? Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't there have been a conflict warning? betafive 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Betafive, I have no idea - and still don't - what happened. I started off trying to fix something that Drmies did inadvertently when he edited his talk page. It was some gobbledygook, and it looks like his fingers slipped or something. I had his edit and an edit window open side by side and carefully restored what had been there before Drmies accidentally changed it. I didn't look at my edit immediately, but I noticed a short time later that the byte change made no sense. So, when I looked at my diff, I saw I had removed an IP's comment, I have no idea how I did that. Still don't. So, I went back in to restore it. I suppose after the first fiasco, I should have looked more carefully at my restore, but I didn't scroll down far enough to notice that at the same time I had removed your comment in restoring the IP's comment. Again, I don't know how this one happened. Usually I can figure these things out, but for the life of me I can't. Again, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, betafive, edit conflict messages do not always appear, and therefore some of your comments are unfair and should be retracted. Not that it's a big deal, but, it upset some people, so, it was a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My apology still stands, Betafive, but the comments by Demiurge and others with regard to "unreported" edit conflicts are true. I've seen it happen. It just never happened to me twice in succession, so it was a bit off-putting for me. Anyway, my suggestion is you move on, but you don't have to retract anything as far as I'm concerned if you don't wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, water under the bridge. If I offended you, I'm sorry about that; I certainly didn't mean to imply it was anything other than an honest mistake. betafive 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for semiprotecting Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism; that's one fewer disruptive editor Binksternet and I have to deal with there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR repeated actionable misconduct

Hi, Bbb23. I go to extreme lengths to avoid any violation of 1RR [7] as not to irritate anyone. P123ct1 was warned about the 1RR restriction in the ISIS article like we all have been warned, yet it repeatedly engages in reverts that violate the 1RR restriction. Since 15 August, starting with [8], its has made 2RRs or more on a daily basis. Also, its edit summary says "reverting self" when it technically was reverting my edit in a 1RR article. This is one example [9] by which it has reverted me [10]I invite you to take a quick look at its edits and take the appropriate action to minimize disruption. Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Corriebertus. While I am completely in agreement with its edits, it has violated 1RR starting with [11] and [12]. Enforcing the strict policy on everyone equally will minimize disruption to other editors who may not agree with its edits. Worldedixor (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm addressing only P123ct1 because you added the other just a few seconds ago. P123ct1 has never been officially notified of the sanctions. I have now notified them. If I recall correctly, I declined to sanction you when you violated 1RR because you had not been officially notified, although notification is not required to sanction someone for violating 1RR. I have no comment on the merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:P123ct1 thought that the "reverting self" edit was their 1RR edit - I did . P123ct1 is clearly aware of 1RR and trying their best not to break 1RR. So far the policy has been applied equally - no one has been blocked. User:Corriebertus did break 1RR - 2 edits with 10 minutes between. Editors need to be reminded to check to see if anyone has edit if they are going to revert twice in a short period of time, Even a minute's delay can end up with an editor breaking 1RR - it's tricky in a fast moving article. It is much better to ask why a fact tag was added, or remove it with a comment saying "this is already in the reference" than to call it disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Worldedixor (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why admin Dougweller is justifying P123ct1's 1RR, but we can assume good faith for now as to his non-bias in favor of one editor until we notice a pattern. I just want to point out the verifiable fact that [13] was made many hours (not minutes) after [14]. I also initiated a discussion on cn requests on the article Talk page. I am asking for no further action on Corriebertus unless Bbb23 deems it necessary as an uninvolved admin in the best interest of WP. Worldedixor (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "repeated actionable misconduct" in the heading is threatening language that in WP I could well imagine is "actionable" in itself! :D .I went to Dougweller yesterday about the "reverting self" edit he refers to above, concerned that it brought me to 1RR. This was his reply:-

I have foolishly reverted myself today (with intervening edits by others). Is that my 1RR for 24 hours? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, afraid so unless you revert your revert. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I promptly reverted my revert and assumed I was clear. Secondly, I didn't think adding a "cn" tag counted as a revert. I am happy to stand corrected on either or both points. I have not hear from Bbb23 yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P123ct1, I will tell you what I tell all editors about reverts in the edit-warring context. Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert. However, administrators have discretion on what they characterize as a revert, and you shouldn't assume that administrators will always agree in any particular case. Contrary to what some think, we do not operate as a single entity. The more minor the edit, the less likely - but not guaranteed - it will be called a revert. For example, if you add a comma or remove a comma, the vast majority, if not all, admins would not label that a revert except in the rare circumstance that it fundamentally changed the meaning of the sentence. Certainly, it's safe to say that fixing a misspelling would not be called a revert. As for your specific question about tagging, you might be shocked to learn how many edit wars are over tags. Yet, in your case, if the tag is brand new (I didn't check), it shouldn't count as a revert because it doesn't change anything in the article; it is a brand new addition. Finally, remember that when you're editing articles that are subject to sanctions, whether they be community or ArbCom sanctions, your edits are going to be scrutinized more closely, so you should be extra careful. Also, with truly gnomish-type edits, ask yourself if it matters whether you do it or let someone else do it or at least at least wait until the 24-hour window has clearly elapsed. It's not urgent, is it? It's a shame we have to operate in this way, but that's the problem with editing controversial subject matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count as a revert per WP:EW, so you can do that as many times as you like and still revert one more editor on that day. CodeCat (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification about self-reverts; it has put my mind at rest. Bbb23, thanks for your explanation as well, particularly about tags. I am surprised to learn that even they can be so controversial! I will obviously have to be careful about any I make in the future. But it does sound to me as if copy-editing really isn't possible in controversial articles with 1RRs. Many new entries in the ISIS article are written by users whose English is not their mother tongue and the grammar can often be awkward and straightening it out can involve quite a lot of minor changes. Obviously the golden rule is not to change the sense, and I haven't met any trouble over that so far. I always think of the reader first, and the ISIS article is getting many thousands of hits per day, so I feel obliged to make it readable. I also didn't realise how much latitude admins are allowed in applying the 1RR rule. I have been quite concerned that I might have been reverting inadvertently after this issue was raised by Worldedixor, and now feel reassured. Thank you again for your help. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

PS My revert at Worldedixor's (8) was made with consensus. I took the matter to the Talk page first, and let the required 24 hours after placing my "cn" tags pass before removing that passage. I was extremely careful about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert. Maybe it should have been on the 3RR talk page but as it is Admins who interpret this I went there. I am concerned about the fact that small changes are necessary to keep an article in shape, especially with new editors who really don't understand what to do or may have poor English. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for A3

Hello Bbb23. I tagged article Kollegova Daria for speedy deletion under criteria A3 because of this reason.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 specifically addresses articles with only infoboxes in them: "Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here." So, when I see an article with just an infobox, it depends on what's in it as to whether I delete it. If you were to transfer the information from the infobox to the body of the article and it was deletable per A3 (e.g., just a repeat of the subject name), I'd A3 it. If it had information that was more than that, as in this case, I will not, at least not under that criterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you for clarifying. As the page seemed similar to Megh Technologies which was deleted per A3, I assumed I could tag it for the same reason. Also because when Peridon explained to Mananrockx (talk · contribs), he only said "Please do not post 'articles' that only have an infobox in them. They will be deleted as having no content."  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi.. I am from persian wikipedia; so sorry if i have an awful language. I have question from you. Why did you revert my edit in Daniel Radcliffe. Because i add his official website in to an article!!--Farshid . Talk 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there is no indication that the website is his official website. It has no About, and it doesn't pretend to be official. My assumption is that it's a fansite.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What about This?--Farshid . Talk 08:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Same problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 in Vatican City

Hello, I've notice that you've deleted this page, is it possible for me to create again this page or maybe 2014 in Vatican City, beacause we can put a lot of things, for example in french fr:2013 au Vatican or fr:2014 au Vatican Olivier LPB (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That page was deleted a very long time ago per WP:CSD#A3, i.e., there was nothing in it of any substance. I'm not clear what you're asking me. You don't need my permission to create real articles, but I suggest you do it through WP:AFC as it doesn't appear that you're a very experienced editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I come from the french wikipedia where I have a good experience. When I see you've deleted this page, I juste ask you if I have the right to create it again without a particular process. I create it in my home page first and after I will put in the wikipedia domain. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes

Hi BBB - I don't know if you've seen the latest on Jose Antonio Vargas - would appreciate your input. Tendentious editing against consensus by RightCowLeftCoast including flooding the talk page in his usual way, and inserting material in the article despite not having agreement from anyone. His response now is to canvass various Wikigroups, some of which aren't listed as interested parties - I don't know what policy is on that. Thanks Tvoz/talk 03:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned a discussion here at

WP:ANI#Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Thrall

Hi. I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Nathan Thrall a few hours after it was placed there. Would you please explain why you think it would be appropriate to do that for an article that does not mention any notability claims and has only a personal website of the individual as a given source?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A7 is not applicable if there are credible claims of significance. It doesn't have to be sourced. In addition, as I stated in my edit summary, I find it unseemly when an editor removes material from an article and then tags it. Take it to AfD if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR in 24 hours restriction and P123ct1

Hi Bbb23. Many editors are restraining our edits in the restricted Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article in strict compliance with 1RR. However, editor P123ct1 appears to allow itself to flagrantly bypass 1RR in the last 24 hours, dropping the name of DougWeller, and giving itself unjust editing advantage. I am not even sure whether DW (who is only an involved editor in this article) is involved in this 1RR in the last 24 hours or not. I don't believe he is. So, I would like to bring these numerous changes to the article by P123ct1 and inconsistent edit summaries to your attention. For full disclosure, there are more edits made by P123ct1 in the last 24 hours that I have not included in the list below. BTW, P123ct1 has been officially notified previously.

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

I am fine with whatever decision you take. Worldedixor (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First one by User:P123ct1 moves text from lead to a new section. Second changes [[Assyrian People|Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Christians]] to [[Assyrian People|Assyrian]], [[Assyrian People|Chaldean]], [[Assyrian People|Syriac]] The third one updated some figures. These are not exactly reprehensible edits, but they are also just counted as one revert as they are sequential as Pc123ct1 clearly stated in his edit summary. Um, the next one is a self-revert of a heading he just added - really? You're counting this as a revert? Then he completes a footnote with [24] The next one comes right after that one and has the edit summary " (→‎top: Copy-ed - typo) " The next one fixes a footnote also as do the rest.

So what conclusion does one draw from this complaint? My own conclusion is that this added to other edits seems to meet our definition of hounding and I will support any complaint made to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller. I brought this matter objectively for the "consideration" of an uninvolved and unbiased admin. What you said above about me is untrue. What you said has the "appearance" of an involved admin favoritism of a certain editor to give it an unfair edit advantage. You also asked the "Question on gnomish editing, eg case changes, and what counts as a revert", and you did not get the answer you were pushing for, quite the opposite. Those are verifiable facts and you do not have consensus on your preferred interpretation. Let's wait for the consensus, and we all can have equal editing privileges. I see a lot of corrections that need to be made, but since any change has been deemed to be a revert, I and many editors have been waiting the 24 hours. Worldedixor (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, someone said I had been sent a notification, but I never received it. If there was one, it would be easily traceable. Self-reverts do not count as reverts - see CodeCat above. I didn't think tidying up a footnote counted as a revert, but will stand corrected if it is. Dougweller spelled out for all of us in "1RR Redux" on the Talk page that several reverts in a row with no intervening edits counted as one revert. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that P123ct1 has been notified. There certainly was one, and it is easily traceable. [25] Dougweller is an involved admin. Worldedixor (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And if I considered myself uninvolved enough, I would have blocked you and I would be very surprised if anyone reversed it. Others in my situation might well have blocked you, but I didn't. I don't see the response I got as quite the opposite either. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WOW! I have no further comments. Worldedixor (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I could respond re notifications, and these exchanges generally, but as my every word is always misinterpreted, I think I had better not. What I will say, however, is that I take great exception to having my every move in Wikipedia monitored by Worldedixor, my own userpages included, and this has been going for quite some time now. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is untrue. It's the other way around. Even placing tags on my well sourced edits. Even changing my correct edits to incorrect ones and then apologizing. Even attacking my (very few) non-English reliable sources even though they're expressly allowed by WP... Even changing whatever I write, and I write very little, in that article. I brought this uncomplicated 1RR matter to the attention of an uninvolved admin's "consideration" who was very clear that any change is an edit... and made sure to say that I am fine with his decision for objectivity.Worldedixor (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Your own userpages included"????. As if I am editing your user pages daily!!!!... It's the other way around. I have never edited your user pages not even once. By contrast, isn't it a fact that you have edited my talk page repeatedly, and isn't true that you have my talk page on your watch list? which, to be objective, is your right on WP. Worldedixor (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I said monitoring, not editing, and I don't keep watchlists on others. My repeated "edits" to your page are the sort of normal courteous messages I would leave for anyone. Querying or reverting an edit it not an attack. It is what we all do. I don't single anyone out. I made one apology for one mistake. The admin said technically any edit is a revert, but he qualified that. He said each admin exercises his own discretion over what is and is not a revert. You should not distort things. I am writing these words now for Bbb23's benefit, not yours, btw. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not singling you out. There is verifiable evidence that I almost never edit or revert your edits. In fact you have reverted, tagged and edited far more of my well sourced edits than I ever did yours, often within minutes or a couple of hours. So, whose monitoring who? However, when "technically every edit is a revert", and I see an avalanche of edits by one out of many editors, do I have no right to bring it objectively to the attention of the admin to "exercise its own discretion over what is and is not a revert"? and to objectively and expressly state "I am fine with whatever decision you take"?.Worldedixor (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When I look to see if there's a revert with consecutive edits is the net effect of the group of edits. There is a limited exception to that, but it's not applicable here, so I won't complicate things by mentioning it. Looking at P123ct1's edits on August 21, he reverted once, and that was the consecutive edits ending at 07:16. The remainder of his edits on August 21, except the last group, were copy edits, mostly changing and improving refs, none of which I would count as a revert. The last group of consecutive edits ending at 14:17 was a partial self-revert of the first group and copy edits. Thus, that doesn't count, either. Hence, no violation of WP:1RR. I don't want to get into the remainder of the charges and countercharges, but I would add that it's a bit troubling that P123ct1 said he wasn't officially alerted to the sanctions. It's kind of hard to miss, and it's still on their talk page. Please pay a little more attention to posts on your talk page. However, that in and of itself is not sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23: I did get a notification, but genuinely thought it was in connection with another article I had only just finished copy-editing when I received it. It didn't cross my mind that it had anything to do with the ISIS page. That is why I was so surprised when it was pointed out. I had clearly misinterpreted "Syria-related articles". I am still not clear why I had it, though, and would be grateful if you could briefly explain why and the consequences. Can I add that I make no distinction between editors when altering anything and always monitor the page for changes, and of course Worldedixor has the right to question anything he is not happy about and ask for clarity. If we were all clearer about what constituted a revert, I think there would have been none of this, but you have explained how this varies from admin to admin, which does make things difficult for us. The editing is noticeably slower on the ISIS page now because of the 1RR and I think I was just bolder than most. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: The alert of the existence of sanctions has no blame attached to it. Technically, it is not required to block someone for violating 1RR. However, it is required to impose discretionary sanctions. I've alerted a lot of editors, generally those who are active in editing the articles that these sanctions cover. I said there is discretion among admins. I didn't mean to imply that a user has no way of knowing what to expect. Many violations are easy, and it would be highly unusual for admins to disagree. I wouldn't let this prevent you from editing this or any other article as long as you approach it with the kind of circumspection it merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What about gnomish editing, like making small changes to the grammar in passages written in broken English by those whose mother tongue is not English, or whenever the grammar is awkward, always of course being careful not to change the sense? Those are not technically reverts that could lead to infraction of the 1RR rule, are they? I would have thought the answer was obvious, but changes like this may be disputed by some editors in the highly charged atmosphere caused by uncertainties over the 1RR rule recently, which is why I have stopped making them, although I have never been challenged over gnomish editing like this before, in any article I have copy-edited. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's always hard to comment without concrete examples, but, generally, grammatical edits, true copy edits, and other minor changes that don't change any substance should not be counted as reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK

I noticed a comment here which pointed out that WP:BLPTALK includes "and not related to making content choices". I did a quick search to find discussions on that wording, and found your comment at WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#talk pages. I guess the wording might not matter so long as enough editors understand the principles of BLP? Or, would it be worth trying to rephrase that? Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to rephrase. My original comment back in March 2013 (lord) seems to be phrased properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My first link shows a current discussion where an editor is of the opinion that comments related to "making content choices" cannot be removed from a BLP talk page per WP:BLPTALK. Your comment in the archive confirms my opinion that the BLPTALK wording gives the wrong impression. Your comment in March 2013 is perfect—I'm wondering if it might be worth trying to rephrase what BLPTALK says. The right place for me to raise this is WT:BLP, but I thought I would get your opinion first in view of the fact that your comment is about the only thing I could find on the merits of the wording.

Update: I checked my WT:BLP link and see that the matter has just been raised at WT:BLP#Material related to content choices. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq, I've made some preliminary comments there.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos

Khabboos is back. His new account is Krish8. It fits his usual activities and edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo took care of it. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, take care as well! AcidSnow (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Krish8 appeared on the ISIS Talk page the other day. AcidSnow informed us he was a sock. The following day a Krishna39 made an edit in ISIS, using as citations a very long list of links Krish8 had left on the Talk page the day before. I suspected he was Krish8's new sock and informed AcidSnow. He confirmed it and Ponyo has now dealt with the matter. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sure other accounts will appear. Do you think you can keep an eye out? AcidSnow (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Let's hope he leaves as obvious clues as he did last time. "Krish" to "Krishna" and the latter using the list of docs the former left the day before were dead giveaways, weren't they? :D He will have to be smarter than that next time. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I left a note about these aliases on the ISIS Talk page, saying to ignore and revert immediately if they reappeared. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a couple of emails from him. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR in 24 hours restriction and Prisencolinensinainciusol

Hi Bbb23.

Unless it has already been duly notified of sanctions, this appears to be an unintended disruption as I don't believe Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) knows that it has actually violated the 1RR per 24 hour restriction on the IS article. I leave you the facts for your consideration.

[26] [27] [28] [29]

Worldedixor (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, not sure what happens now to my lonesome 1RR per 24 hours that I seem to have lost with the 2RR above. Is it a fact of life that I must now wait for another 24 hours? or can I revert the 2RR now? Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't violate WP:1RR just because another editor has done so, regardless of whether they reverted you or someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. Understood.Worldedixor (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One new thing to bring to your attention, Bbb23. Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) is on its 3RR or 4RR in 24 hours. This is the latest revert [[30]]. It could be either ignoring the notice of sanctions or perhaps not aware of its own Talk page. Its reverts are intentionally or unintentionally disruptive. This is brought to your attention for your consideration. Worldedixor (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of being tagged for violating 1RR policy, and I'm trying not to revert any edits. However I don't consider [[31]] to break this rule, if anything it's just a partial reversion.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A courteous note to let you know that, in general, a partial reversion of another editor's edit is still a reversion. However, the decision here ultimately lies with the uninvolved admin Bbb23. I had left you a message on your Talk page. I personally am happy to know that you are now aware of the WP:1RR sanctions and you are complying like the rest of us. Have a nice day. Worldedixor (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That last edit seems to have added a link, how is that a revert? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of José Ramón Oyola

I was late in seeing and responding to your notice of speedy deletion: 00:56, 16 August 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page José Ramón Oyola (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) Mr. Oyola was chairman of the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico (GDB) which has been in the news recently as GDB presided over the slide that led Puerto Rico to be the first state-level jurisdiction in the nation to fall into junk-bond status. Pr4ever (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Chand Narang removals and user Narang 5

Hi Bbb23,

I see that you are the admin who placed the block on Narang_5 for edit warring on Gopi Chand Narang. Now 2 anon IP SPAs with a shared range have made similar removals. I haven't done enough with Sockpuppet investigation filing to know whether this enough evidence of block evasion / worth starting an investigation over, or if it would be better just to seek page protection, and your thoughts on this would be helpful.Dialectric (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dialectric: I've semi-protected the article for a week and increased Narang 5's block to two weeks for the block evasion. I chose not to block the two IPs as they are dynamic and it would serve little purpose. However, if they, other IPs, or even named accounts cause any disruption to related pages, please let me know. I reverted the latest edit to the article. Thanks.

Sandip Goswami

Hello. This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandip_Goswami . Please read http://www.amazon.com/Sandip-Goswami/e/B00JZ59958/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_3?qid=1408833088&sr=8-3 , https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=AxL5U9itEYbDoAPw5YKIBA#q=poet+sandip+goswami . I have no word. sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soukarsha Dutta (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again...

I owe you thanks for your assistance on the Motion Picture rating articles. I noticed a comment at SPI that it was "too obvious" for a checkuser. While I appreciate the assistance I obviously don't want to create extra unneceassry work for people helping me with a problem. I think DJmex will be back again if his form is anything to go by, so do you have any suggestions on how I should approach it? Should I report it at SPI but not request a user check (I guess I can leave that to the discretion of the admin who takes up the case?) or maybe ANI would be better when it is an obvious continuation of disruption, or perhaps AIV? Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, you should go to SPI and open up a new report. I don't mind your coming to me to block the new account, either, but ANI and AIV are the wrong venues. If you open up a new report, there's nothing wrong with requesting a CU. However, admins with CU privileges will often wait to see if a clerk endorses the request. Depends on the individual CU, whether they are familiar with the master from another time, and how backlogged we are. We're pretty backlogged right now, which is why I didn't want to make extra work for them, although it would probably be a relatively simple check. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Diamondlease: Page deleted

I had created following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamondlease on wiki and was trying to obtain more information from other sources regarding the Diamondlease. Unfortunately page was deleted and so now i wont be able to add more information on this page. Could you please tell me if i will gather more information about diamondlease then how can i add this information to the page which was deleted or how can add more information to this page so that it can be reviewed and published on the wiki. or can we recreate the deleted page with more information about organisation

I would appreciate if you as an admin can point me right direction so that we can recreate Diamondlease page as per wiki guidelines.

First, you used two different IP addresses to leave this post. You need to use your registered account. Do you have more than one? Second, who is "we"? Also, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR and footnotes

Could you clarify whether alterations to footnotes (tidying up and correcting) count as reverts, please? I do an awful lot of this on the ISIS page. I take it from your last comment in the last but one section that I have not broken the 1RR yet, but please could you confirm so that I can be quite sure? I also had another query, in my last comment in that section, on the sanctions notice. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I was crystal clear. I said "no violation of 1RR". If you're talking about the alteration of the refs themselves, that was one of the reasons I didn't find many of your edits to be reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Could you clear up another point I have about reverts? It is permitted to make several reverts in a row as long as there are no intervening edits, but can several separate and unrelated reverts be made in one "save"? It seems a good way to obviate the intervening edits problem, but I'm not sure it is quite "ethical". I will admit to having done it several times in the past few days and am now feeling uncomfortable about it. I only did it because my "reverts needed" list was piling up, and tbh, I don't think anyone would have disputed they were needed (edits not reflecting citations accurately, so corrected, edits that had undone consensus decisions, statements not backed up by their citations, so tagged, that sort of thing). --P123ct1 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive edits never count as more than one revert. Each time you hit Save, your edit is concluded. If you want to revert different editors at the precise same time, you would have to do it so that you hit Save once, meaning you'd have to include the "reverts" in the same edit. Every time you hit Save, you run the risk that someone else will edit the article before you do your next Save. However, if that happens and you later claim that you intended the edits to be consecutive, an administrator will probably look at the timing to see if your assertion is plausible. However, you might be blocked before someone does that. It's not always easy for administrators to look at every detail.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I always check to see if my reverts are consecutive. If I did two reverts in a row and they were not consecutive, because there was an intervening edit, I would revert one of them, so a self-revert, and that way not break the 1RR. If I understood Dougweller correctly at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Reverts and 1RR, that would be one way of not breaking the 1RR. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Doug is right, and that's a very good, albeit rarely used, practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Scalia edit

And you don't think saying that only "liberals" are critical of the judge in that section isn't POV? Or earlier comparing his method to knight's isn't? C'mon.--Aichik (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Pegasus

Hello Bbb23, I was trying to create an article on "Air Pegasus" and found that you've previously deleted the page. Could you please move the text to a draft page so i can work on addressing its promotional content issues? Thankyou. Trinidade (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do that. It was deleted per G11 and G12. Copyright infringements can't be restored, even to user space. I can tell you it was a brief version of what's on the website cited in the delete, so it wouldn't help you much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, i'll start from scratch then. Thanks a lot. Trinidade (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your help determining a pattern of disruptive behavior from a POV editor on a large number of LGBT related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, but I honestly think most of the credit goes to others, not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave everyone involved one. ;-). The situation went very smoothly and could easily have become a dramafest!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my mistakes. I hope it's not too much trouble. I'm sure I'll learn the ins and outs soon, and I would appreciate any helpful advice that you are willing to give me. TinaG (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You're pretty inexperienced to be tagging articles, but taking it to AfD after I removed the tag is the correct thing to do if you think it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Do you understand what is and what isn't A7-eligible? There are even some administrators who get it wrong occasionally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fast learner, so I should get better real soon, especially if you don't mind giving me some pointers. My current understanding of A7 is that, any article, "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", is a decent candidate for A7. Also, articles whose "claim of significance or importance given is not credible", might qualify. I think only a few my A7 tags were inappropriate, whereas several did result in deletion, which I take to mean that my instincts are decent, if not fully honed at this point. What do you think about Östersund bid for the 2002 Winter Olympics? TinaG (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please reread WP:CSD#A7 and answer the question again. You're missing key information in your answer above.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to, "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."? TinaG (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and let's get the meaning of A7 cleared up before we discuss specific examples. Honestly, I think you would be better off if you stopped tagging articles and perhaps instead watched articles being tagged and the outcome of those tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? What about A7 do you think that I am missing? Is it the issue of significance versus notability? TinaG (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll tell you, but with the understanding that you should stop tagging and I won't answer any more questions about your tagging until you have demonstrated a greater understanding of the process. Not every article is eligible for A7, even if it is absolutely non-notable. A7 applies only to a "real person, individual animal[], organization, web content or organized event." If the article is about, for example, a place, it cannot be A7ed. It also explicitly says that it does not apply to articles about people's "books, albums, software, or other creative works." Thus, for example, an ordinary movie cannot be A7ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I knew that part, so I didn't realize what you meant. Sorry to bother you with questions; I'll ask someone else from now on. TinaG (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but you're not very precise with your language. Just a friendly warning. Your heart seems to be in the right place, so I don't want to offend you or discourage you from improving Wikipedia, but if you mistag too many articles, you may have to stop tagging whether you want to or not. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a hands on learner, so it is discouraging to be told to stop until I master the skill, and it seemed like you could have just told me in a succinct way exactly what I need to know about A7 instead of playing the guessing game, but I won't tag anymore articles with A7, even though I still have no idea what exactly I don't understand about it. I think 5 or 6 that I tagged were deleted, a couple by you, and maybe three reverted, which I think is wrong also, because the CSD should have been contested, right, not reverted? Anyway, it looks like you reverted only one of my A7 tags, so why was I doing such a poor job? To me, A7 is two main things, "An article ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" may qualify, but only articles about people, groups, companies, animals and web content" qualify regardless of the article's failure to indicate why its subject is important or significant. What am I missing? TinaG (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Would this apply to July 15th car bomb attack in Afghanistan, an article about a notable event that isn't necessarily all that "important or significant"? TinaG (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Because this is not about, "people, groups, companies, animals and web content", it does not qualify for A7, right? TinaG (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is my last reply on tagging. You left out events.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I copy-pasted that from Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion, which I was re-reading at the time of my response. Sorry to waste your time. TinaG (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Memills (again)

Hi Bbb23, it appears that User:Memills continues to edit tendentiously on the page Masculism. I gathered some diff links on his talk page. His edit and revert (without consensus) are the latest actions in a slow-moving edit war that centers over a paragraph about the connection between masculinism and evolutionary psychology. His first change was in May 2013, the edit was (partially) reverted. He restored most of his edit in October 2013, but his edit was reverted again. He restored his edit again this month and got reverted again. He re-reverted. What makes it even worse is that he has been edit warring over text-book examples of WP:Synth and editorializing. He basically claims that a source from 1989 contains a rebuttal to a statement from a source from 2012 when in fact that older source is completely unrelated to the article and says nothing about the newer source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely topic-banned. Please let me know if you think he violates the ban. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your swift response. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if User:Memills understands his topic ban. The first thing he did after the topic ban is continue to participate in a discussion about a men's rights journal that he has tried to include in the page Michael Kimmel. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, again. The discussion is at the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, not on a MRM-related page. I had earlier requested a review there to get neutral feedback, and to help to stop Sonicyouth86 (talk)'s batttlegroundish behavior (which I am sure Bbb23 is closely monitoring given the high priority that is placed on administrators' neutrality). Memills (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think you can override community consensus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Proposed_indefinite_topic_ban_for_User:Memills_from_issues_related_to_men.27s_rights.2C_broadly_construed

There was not a consensus to topic ban Memills and that you are trying to impose one when the community has rejected it is very telling of your intentions. I invite you to reverse this action before I take to the noticeboards.

In addition, you are an involved administrator. You voted in the last tban discussion and cannot be considered uninvolved for sanctioning this specific editor. Your own quotes'

Suppport indefinite topic ban. I was a bit on the fence when this started. Much as I respect Kevin's zeal and antipathy for agenda-driven editors, he has a history of being a bit overly aggressive in this area. That said, the discussion with Memills about the legal threat cemented my support. Memills's discussions in the MRM area are similar. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint, but Memills keeps harping and harping on the same theme until they try the patience of all other editors. Additionally, Memills tends to use fringe sources and oblique attacks (always superficially civil) when having these discussions. This isn't just a different perspective. The style is WP:POINTy and self-absorbed. And it never seems to stop, which, in many ways, belies Memills's assertion that they are non-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is another invitation to revert your decision lest this heads to noticeboards. Tutelary (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary (talk) offers sage advice. You are a highly involved administrator, with a very long history of arguably non-neutral sanctioning on MRM-related articles.

The community has already spoken. Next time, the focus will be on you, not me, at the noticeboards (with a very long list of historical diffs).

It is an opportunity now to re-consider what was likely a decision made in haste. Memills (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion

Curious to know why this is absurd. Seven season as the lead on a popular prime time show vs. thirteen episodes on a show that has a cult following. Debatable maybe, but not absurd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing a current top show and making him "best known" only for past things makes no sense. Your statement that the other show had a cult following also supports the absurdity of the edit as best known implies widely known, and cult shows normally implies a select group. Absurd may have been slightly harsh, but not by much. At least that's my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense because I completely misread the edit. For some reason I thought you were removing the info instead of restoring it. Sorry about that! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, every once in a while I get mixed up between the right and left panes showing the edit and go from right to left instead of left to right. I can't even claim dyslexia because I don't have it. I like to think of it as Yin and Yang and balancing the hemispheres of the world. Of course, that's utter garbage, but it sounds good, doesn't it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm blaming alcohol. The water bottle on my desk could be filled with vodka, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Or gin ... or both. You'd think you'd be able to taste the difference, but perhaps you're so sloshed you can't taste anything. Remember: it's dangerous to drink and edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes! We need a new set of warnings: {{uw-drink1}} to {{uw-drink4}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User is back

75.156.178.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back as 70.74.193.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him, Jmh649, I've blocked so many I've lost count.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR in 24 hours restriction and Corriebertus

Hi Bbb23. I noticed that Corriebertus (talk) has not been notified of sanctions. I will leave the following for your consideration.

[32]

[33]

[34]

Worldedixor (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor: those are three consecutive edits and, together, constitute one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here. The sanctions notice is not necessary for an editor to be blocked for exceeding 1RR, they are separate. See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but, as I think I've mentioned before, I generally don't block for a 1RR violation if there's been no alert, even though I know I can. Also, the question of whether to alert someone is discretionary, and despite the language of the alert, I don't alert someone just because they've edited an article regulated by the sanctions. It's tiresome.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it Bbb23. Worldedixor (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

However, its 1RR has reverted well discussed entries that another editor, P123ct1, almost perfected following long discussions. I though the notice would help it wake up. Worldedixor (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor's point deserves a separate discussion, as I've noticed this quite often happens on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi pages. It is very disheartening. I can't think of a fool-proof way of preventing reverts of well-thought out consensus agreements. Not that one would want to prevent a better idea, of course not, but it is sometimes very obvious that editors have no inkling of previous lengthy discussions and conclusions on the Talk page when making their reverts and exactly why a passage is worded a certain way. Is this just something we have to live with in an encyclopaedia that is open to all to edit? It seems like an uphill battle sometimes. I am not sure which forum is the best place to discuss this. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You've pinpointed the problem. People act without reading the talk page. There is no solution to that. I know I've done it. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not being able to immediately implement a consensus doesn't bother me. First, a great many editors think they've reached a consensus when they haven't. This happens more often than not. Second, if it's that strong a consensus, some other editor who hasn't reverted can do it. Finally, if that doesn't happen, it can wait. Very little is as urgent as some think. We are not a blog, even though on some "current events" it seems like we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the yo-yoing problem? There are a handful of well-thought through edits that have consensus in both the ISIS and al-Baghadi pages that go in and out like clockwork and the question is never resolved. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can make a case that a particular editor is defying a clear consensus repeatedly, then that editor can be blocked per the discretionary sanctions (assuming they've been previously alerted). Also, edit warring may be sanctionable even if it's not a breach of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is why I really don't like the language "well-discussed" that was suggested. It can mean almost anything. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. Most of the time the yo-yoing is caused by different editors who fly in from nowhere and change something without reading the Talk pages, fly out again forever, and are reverted by those who have been in on why the passages stand as they do. That isn't edit-warring. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, life is tough in the fast lane. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia readers realised how many of its articles were a work-in-progress, they would be both shocked and disillusioned! :D  : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! To some extent, all articles at Wikipedia are a work in progress. However, many need a lot more work than others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Jordan Belfort Reverts

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Dude, please stop reverting relevant, reliably sourced material without explanation. If you have a beef with the material then take it up on the article's talk page, that's where I'll look for your response.67.40.211.28 (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've left a question for you on the Jordan Belfort talkpage. --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to you on Talk:Jordan Belfort. JB18Aug2014 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Glen Campbell

While I understand to a certain degree why you've removed the DUI arrest content at the Glen Campbell article, I'd like to know your complete rationale behind it in light of WP:CENSOR and how we don't work to whitewash articles. During interviews since his dementia diagnosis, Campbell's wife has said that she started to notice changes in Campbell's cognitive ability and behaviors that have now been attributed to his neurological deterioration due to the dementia. I think the DUI could be very briefly mentioned in this vein, but definitely agree the arrest doesn't deserve its own section. Thoughts? Comments? Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's very old and has nothing to do with his career. If it could be tied with reliable sources to his later dementia, that might be more noteworthy, but we can't work from WP:SYNTHESIS. And this has nothing to do with censorship and whitewashing. Those are inflammatory words that load any constructive dialog.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pudeo' 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The above AN/I discussion has been closed as endorsing Bbb23's actions with near unanimous support from the uninvolved editors who commented. Monty₈₄₅ 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User: Cwobeel

You cut this guy a break the other day and you did not block him from editing even though he was edit warring on two different articles. Now, he promised you he would not edit war, but he is at the Rick Perry article edit warring again. Can you enforce the limitations that you placed upon him when you cut him a break. MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in tag team edit warring again today, just one day later.--NK (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) There is nothing going on right now at Rick Perry that requires admin attention. All is well. You arn't being held to any different standard than anyone else. Cwobeel is already under the same limitations per WP:EW and WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

NazariyKaminski, I know you can't respond here because you've been blocked for a month, but you can read it if you have a mind to. First, going back to editing the same article that provoked a one-week block right after expiration of that block is inherently dangerous. Second, you didn't go back with gnomish edits, but with reverts, essentially continuing to edit-war, regardless of whether you breached 3RR. Third, you were warned by another administrator (MastCell) about your behavior, but all you did was argue. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you argue with pretty much everyone. Finally, Cwobeel is not the problem at the Perry article. His unblock condition was limited to two articles, and they don't include the Rick Perry article. In any event, I don't see any evidence of him breaching 3RR. He reverted once in the last 24 hours. I endorse Dreadstar's block. You clearly have no insight into your disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR and 79.223.15.144 and Fossfaat

Hi Bbb23. Since you are an uninvolved admin, please take a look at this [35] starting at 23:37, 27 August 2014. I may be wrong but each one of the two editors has unintentionally violated 1RR. Also, Fossfaat doesn't seem to understand the meaning of minor edit. Worldedixor (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Envivio

Hello this is Marcalsig. Why do you think I'm doing advertising? I'm just giving neutral info about a company. For your information, before making it, I looked to similar companies' (such a Elemental or Harmonic Inc.) wikipedia article to know what was the best way to do it. I just want to inform as you do with your articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcalsig (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is disruptive. It is promotional. You remove maintenance templates without reason. You commit copyright infringement, which, in and of itself is a blockable offense. You said you would talk to the "Wikipedia managers" if editors continued to revert you. I'm not sure if you even know what that means, but to the extent anyone "manages" Wikipedia, it is a group of administators. I am one, and so is Drmies. I suggest you tread more carefully as you are very close to losing your editing privileges at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR and Gazkthul

Hi Bbb23.

I thought I'd bring it to your attention the 2RR [36] and [37] by Gazkthul (talk) to take a quick look, if warranted. BTW, if, for any reason, you want me to cease and desist such heads up messages about perceivable 1RR, and I say perceivable because the ultimate decision obviously lies with you, please let me know. Worldedixor (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

One more edit [38] for your consideration. Worldedixor (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qizilbash123

Hi, Nader shah has afshars ancestry. and afshar people are mixed Turkmen and Azerbaijani people. but User:Qizilbash123 remove picture of Nader shah from this article. plz investigation--Samək^Talk 07:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No need for investigation since he has no sources and he's playing with history. Tiny Afshar tribe exist today and they are linguistically assimilated into larger groups, and he's trying to imply that to 18th century. I left reply with explanation and analogies. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation tags

With reference to several discussions we had on 1RR and reverts - this is one [39] - you said something about citation tags, but I cannot find that discussion anywhere. I wanted to check when moving a citation tag becomes a revert and whether affixing one counts as a revert. I know 24 hours must elapse between affixing a tag to text and removing the tag and text if not dealt with in that time, but am not sure of the revert rule here. Can you elucidate, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

24 hours? Where does it say that? Adding one wouldn't normally be a revert (if it hadn't been removed recently), but removing one and or the text would probably be (although replacing one with a source obviously isn't). Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doug.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 24 hours as a rule of thumb. I think that was the conclusion reached on the Talk page before I removed a tag recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here, so if Doug's answer didn't resolve the issue, perhaps you can rephrase your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am clear now about citation needed tags and reverts. I want to know how long a citation needed tag should be left in place before it can be removed along with the text it is appended to if a citation is not provided in that time. Twenty-four hours was mentioned on the Talk page as being reasonable. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not police my talk page

I appreciate your intent, but I think policing other people's talk pages as you did in this edit is a mistake. Had User:I really need that username spammed a huge number of user pages some sort of mass reversion might have been appropriate. As best I can tell, I really need that username hit a small number of people manually in a sincere if mistaken effort. That sort of thing is probably best dealt with by the users with whom the talk pages are associated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alan De Smet: I removed the comment because the editor was a sock puppet. I will continue to revert when I think it's appropriate, no matter what the page (I wasn't "policing" your talk page). If you wish to restore a reverted comment, barring some policy-based reason for not doing so, that's your privilege.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR and Green Cardamom

Are reviewers exempt of 1RR restrictions in a 1RR article? If no, then I'll just bring to your attention the 1RR+ by Green Cardamom (talk) at [40] starting at 13:34, 27 August 2014‎ and ending at 04:21, 28 August 2014‎ Green Cardamom, with probably more reverts coming, to take a quick look, if warranted. Worldedixor (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users." (emphasis added). And those reverts were not really. The material added by the IP remained in the article, I'm fine with it, there was no revert by the end of the series of edits which were party due to my confusion over what was being done. "Probably more reverts coming", huh? Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that you and a few other editors are trying so hard to include without much success. -- GreenC 14:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not personal GreenC. When I see 1RR situation, I bring it to the attention of Bbb23, as an uninvolved admin, until it asks me not to do so. I have no edit conflict with you at all, quite the opposite. However, your saying "Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that you... are trying so hard to include" is false... I have NEVER included a video. I am making sure to state this for the record. The fact remains that other editors, including me, are adhering to the 1RR. Worldedixor (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No one ever said you weren't adhering to 1RR. Personally I think you (anyone) will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts you directly. Also 1RR is easy to run afoul of without realizing it and much better handled with warnings on talk pages than telling admins unless it's a repeated infraction after warning. -- GreenC 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree in part and disagree in part. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor: I'm going to ask you not to post any more of these kinds of messages on my talk page. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but I feel like I'm becoming a clearing house for your complaints about other editors. If you believe an editor has violated WP:1RR, you may file a report at WP:AN3. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand, Bbb23. Got it. It was all in good faith, and now I agree with GreenC's statement: anyone will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts them directly. Worldedixor (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Gamma phi fraternity

Second one you beat me to. This means I can turn in. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You should already have turned in. It's late there. Besides, at your age you need your rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

deletion of pms awareness page

I posted an article today, and it was deleted because it is "obviously" made up. I will agree that it is "obviously" made up, since it is something that was started 2 days ago amongst a group of friends, with the goal of spreading the idea. At what point is this subject no longer "obviously" made up and able to be posted in Wikipedia? Danius27 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

When the subject is reported with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ok, thank you. I will have to wait, then! thanks for the prompt response. Danius27 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for pointing out my mis-click. I have fixed it Chillum 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

"We don't preventatively block editors". Well, there's this policy: [41] If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Bbb23, please see this, concerning this misuse of rollback. It's one thing if it were done by mistake or was something they realize is inappropriate, but defending their use of rollback to engage in edit-waring makes it clear that Winkelvi needs to have their rollback user right removed until they can demonstrate that they know when rollback should be used. Enforcing what they believe is a "consensus" in an ongoing discussion has never been a proper use of rollback. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem, Aoidh? As I stated at the 3RR noticeboard (more than once, I might add), I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Wikipedia can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a twinkle rollback and here is one without an edit summary I created, while here is one you just created. Those examples include {TW} at the end, while your use of rollback did not. That is, however, ultimately irrelevant. If you believe that would be an appropriate use of rollback, as you said it was, then that shows a critical lack of understanding of what rollback is used for, and as such you should have the rollback user right removed until you can demonstrate otherwise. That is the problem, that you don't know what rollback should be used for, the issue isn't solely that you misused it, though that only adds to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that you don't believe that repeatedly undoing another editor's edits during an ongoing discussion is edit-warring, well that's a separate issue. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, you mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard that because there was no edit summary that it was a rollback. I assume you are saying that based on that alone, you feel I used the rollback privilege rather than using Twinkle's version of rollback. I still don't believe that is what happened. If you choose "rollback (VANDAL)" (as opposed to [rollback (AGF)] or just [rollback]), it does not give you an opportunity to add an edit summary. While I still maintain I did not (intentionally) choose either the rollback privilege or vandal rollback from Twinkle, I will say that I may have done either. But not meaning to. I do NOT use Rollback (the privilege given and based on trust) hardly ever - unless it is obvious vandalism. I MAY have chosen Twinkle vandal rollback, but I don't think so. I probably used Twinkle rollback and forgot to leave an edit summary. I'm not an editor who would try to play games or use what's been entrusted to me in an inappropriate manner. That's just not who I am. I think that having rollback as long as I have and never having an issue or inappropriate use incident or complaint in the past would attest to that fact. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't matter how you do it; the idea is that when you revert an editor, not including an edit summary is the equivalent of rollback. I tend to agree with Aoidh that if you had used Twinkle, it would have shown up in the edit (mine do, I believe). The whole issue of Twinkle and rollback is a contentious one with no clear solution, at least last time I checked. But it's late and I don't feel like continuing this conversation. I'm not going to remove your rollback privilege. I have no comment on whether it should be removed, but I don't feel comfortable doing so because I don't get into permissions much and I don't like taking administrative action in an area unless I feel cofident that what I'm doing is correct. Now, could we all just go do something else? I'm sick of seeing the orange banner.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A possible sock puppet but not sure if I should do a report but...

Okay so this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Divyasharma2014 keeps on making articles for a company named Yoge Entertainment, which is then owned by Rohit Yoge (apparently who knows) which was made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SabriBrothers. Then finally they both contributed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabri_brothers_india which was made by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rohit2014

Yeah this is getting confusing. Wgolf (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Matter concerning Robin Williams' childrem

Hello Bbb23 I don't mean to bother you but still I would like to explain myself clearly to you. I'm commenting here because you said on ANI that no one should comment anymore. The editor Winklevi had removed the names of Robin's children from his article's infobox. I didn't know that you can't add the name of children in the infobox who are not noticeable. Also there was never any consensus on removing the name of children's name. However since Zelda Rae Williams is noticeable I added her name to it. He removed the name saying it had been already discussed and decided on the talk page. However whether or not her name should be included should depend on a consensus which never was. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I folllowed all of that. These sorts of things are usually straightforward, but the Williams issue apparently is a bit more complicated. In any event, as you know, we work from consensus, and sometimes it's hard to obtain one. Just don't let yourself get dragged into an article battle. Not worth it. BTW, the word is "notable," not "noticeable". Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo

You blocked this user for two weeks in response to a 3RR complaint. He's had these issues before, and tends to keep reverting regardless of what's happening. He edits in contentious areas, and has been warned of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern European articles (such as the one he was edit warring on that led to his block). I personally don't think a 2-week block is going to alleviate the situation, having dealt with him before. I think that the best thing you could do is place him under 1RR via discretionary sanctions. This would give him WP:ROPE, but it might also teach him the virtues of talk page discussions. His past behaviour has not been alleviated by successive blocks, and so I feel that this might be a more worthwhile way to teach him what he should be doing. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the block at this point, but for the future (if I remember), could you please provide me with the link of his notification of the sanctions? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The notification can be found here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh, not hard for you to remember, is it? :-) BTW, someone should have mentioned the DS on the report at AN3. Even you commented without doing so. I don't always think about sanctions, and it would be nice to be alerted to the fact that the article is subject to sanctions. That might have changed the outcome. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that in future. I didn't think it was necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All clueless admins need as much help as they can get.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Book suggestion

Bbb23, I noticed you have a wonderful picture of France on your user profile. I stumbled upon a fascinating book and a great study. It's called The Discovery of France by Graham Robb. And yes, it's a WP:RS! I really suggest it. It gave me an entirely new perception of the country. I think you'll enjoy it. Cheers! Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Étienne, thanks! I love the European countryside generally, but I particularly love the French countryside, not just because it's so beautiful but also because you can eat so well - and I speak the language, although not as well as I used to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The book is exactly about the countryside. How it has transformed these past centuries. How France was only considered 'France' in the Paris region. Everyone else had their own definition of Pays and nationhood. It was really an eye-opener for me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter_Görlitz

Hi,

I've noticed you have been involved in the recent block of the above user and there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI that might benefit from your input. Amortias (T)(C) 21:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tanbircdq, I see you have left this message on the talk pages of many administrators. I appreciate your reverting an IP who changes or removes the tag, but, at the same time, you shouldn't be adding tags. That is the function of an administrator or an SPI clerk. As for the IP problem, I tend to watchlist those accounts I block but not those accounts I tag. As I'm sure you know, Aldota has a lot of puppets, my watchlist is already over 5,000 pages, and I'm not going to add all of those accounts to it. Also, I don't see it as a major problem. The block of the account normally ties the account to the master, and, of course, the evidence is at the SPI itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Not contesting what you've said Bbb23, just curious why, if only administrators are to add sock tags, is "Tag" a click-on task that can be accessed and done by non-administrators from an SPI report? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, the reason is that administrators and clerks have a reason to tag (and what kind of tag) or not to tag, and it's not a good idea to usurp that function. Another editor, however, is welcome to come and ask the clerk or one of the administrators involved in the SPI about a particular tag or lack of tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that because non-admins can perform the function it would be seen as stepping on toes and not kosher to do so. Now I am hanging my head a bit since I've done it without asking more than once. Well, not really hanging my head, but I am certainly feeling a bit sheepish. I'll be sure to ask in the future. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries and no need to feel "sheepish".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Akshatra

You think this user is a sock puppet? User:EdJohnston just blocked him for edit warring.

I have opened SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but things were a bit hectic for me. I see another clerk is handling it, so you're in good shape.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement protection level

Hi, just curious as to why you changed the protection level? The changes were discussed, and it was found that the reference provided didn't back up the claim (see Talk:Men's rights movement‎) and the 1R rule was not infringed. Zambelo; talk 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus. I've been following the discussion. A violation of 1RR would have resulted in a block of that user. However, I locked the page based on the edit warring by multiple parties, including you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring - I reverted once, and then the rest of the discussion occurred on the talk page. Zambelo; talk 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. CSDarrow reverted first, followed by PearlSt82, followed by you, followed by Sonicyouth86, again by CSDarrow, and last by EvergreenFir. Although you reverted only once, you were part of the problem as far as I was concerned. You also pushed the envelope by adding tags, which technically were not reverts. No more disussion here. Do it over there. I'm tired and am going off-wiki shortly. I don't have time for this bickering.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it based on the number of total reverts rather than those by a single editor? If it was enforced, it would mean Zambelo, Sonicyouth86, CSDarrow and EvergreenFir would all have received blocks as they all reverted after the initial revert, which would stop the debate dead as more than half of its contributors would be blocked --94.175.85.144 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. The edit warring revert policy applies by editor. There are, of course, guidelines that address how reverts should be handled by editors after a "first revert" - and editors often argue about their application - but those aren't policy and have little to do with rules like 1RR and 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I see, wouldn't that mean that, if three editors support the version of an article, but two do not, the three would always win in the case of an edit war, or does that change things? How does that stand with WP:DEM? Sorry if I'm bothering you --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be about winning or losing, although it certainly feels that way sometimes. It's supposed to be driven by reasonable consensus, and as you note with DEM, that's not a pure vote-counting exercise. If five editors are edit-warring, regardless of how many want a particular version, it's likely that the article will be locked because of the disruption. Even if it's not - say, for example, no one brings it to the attention of an admin - the two minority editors can always seek a real consensus for resolving the dispute. It's a bit hard to discuss these things in the abstract as context is very important. It's also not what I'd call a scientific process, so there may be judgment calls, and not everyone will agree. It can be painful. BTW, you appear to be editing a great deal in this topic area. Of course, you're not required to do so, but given your apparent interest in somewhat controversial articles and your questions about Wikipedia policies, why don't you register an account?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I had an account before, I decided I found the community aspects of the website to be really toxic and previous arguments that I had made would later be used against me. I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them. I also felt sort of sleazy interacting with racists/sexists on a personal basis, I guess that's the problem with editing in controversial areas. I can imagine the feminist/antifeminist thing will go on for a while, I think many of the antifeminists need the conflict in order to sustain, it seems to make the debates more interesting for them, but they do end up largely being about rhetoric compared to real-life issues and there are rarely references made to books on the subject (the "feminists run academia" thing is just a rebranding of the "cultural Marxism" argument used by racists, it just forces you to use low quality sources). Thank you for the explanation, I hope it gets solved soon --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[talk page stalker] Re: "I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them" - "You can't do that 94.175.85.144 - that's considered "avoiding scrutiny" and is an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Especially when editing in an area under probation you need to be transparent with your editing history and whether you had previous accounts--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? I don't quite get why that's a rule but I should probably stop editing in that case --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't a rule banned editors would simply circumvent their restrictions and do exactly what you've been doing. I'm afraid I don't see why anyone could have such a worry about using an account - did you have a specific problem when you had an account?--Cailil ^talk 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also you could continue as you are IF you privately disclose your past account (so that there's no question of ban evasion) to an uninvolved admin (like Bbb23) and leave a note on the IP addresses you use noting that these edits are by the same person. Really it's easier to have an account--Cailil ^talk 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I know an editor who had an account and who then edited for long stretches of time using IP addresses. However, I - and another admin - knew who the editor was and that they were not violating policy by using IP addresses. Cailil's suggestion is one way to comply with the policy. Sorry our conversation got you into this, @94, but Cailil is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Bbb23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

3D (print me)

Hi Bbb23. Totally respect where you're coming from and I couldn't find anything on wiki but the band in question are all over the internet and getting write ups in US 3D print magazine journals about their music! The single was also played on the BBC Radio 6 music show 6Recommends ([42]). Please will you consider re-establishing the post; althou I'm pretty new here so would value some time to get it right. Many thanks and keep up the good work. AngieBrowne (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily hard to keep an article about a song sung by a band or other artist for which there is no Wikipedia article. The article on Feral Five was also deleted (not by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Just to say, my past experience with indefinitely blocked users, especially socks is that their talk pages are often redirected to user pages to avoid confusion, as I did at User talk:HotHat.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, that's a decision the blocking administrator should make rather than a non-admin. My suggestion is if you want to do it, you ask the blocking administrator, or at least some administrator involved in the SPI. Just so it's clear, I don't think you did anything in bad faith. I just prefer to leave it the way it is. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hi. Instead of removing my unresolved report, why don't you just take a look at it and get it sorted out? The whole point of the noticeboard is to stop edit warring and have it sorted out. Ignoring cases doesn't solve anything; in fact it just defeats the purpose of having the noticeboard in the first place. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

MrMoustacheMM, I would have replied substantively to this inquiry if you hadn't reverted again. As I said in my edit summary just a moment ago, if you revert again, you'll be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, reply now then, I'm listening. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You make several assumptions. First, you assume your report was ignored. Administrators evaluate reports. They don't always rule, and they don't always even comment. That doesn't mean the report was ignored. Second, nothing compels an administrator to comment on a report or rule on a report just because it's filed. Third, not ruling on a report doesn't "defeat the purpose" of the noticeboard. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would guess that most reports are ruled on. Yours isn't the first, though, that wasn't ruled on; nor will it be the last. Finally, you do not get to insist on a report being ruled on. Nor is it permissible for you to restore an archived report just because it wasn't ruled on. As I said in my first edit summary reverting you, if you have something new to say, e.g., more edit warring since the report was archived, then create a new report. You can always link to the archived report for context.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will start off by apologising for reverting you and restoring my report. As you say, I made several assumptions that were incorrect (although, in my defence, I had no way of knowing they were incorrect).

Perhaps these should be spelled out on ANEW, as it looked from my perspective that my report was simply ignored. A comment in the top area saying something like "Not all reports are commented on or resolved. If your report is archived without resolution, do not restore it; instead begin a new case if the issue continues." Had a comment like this existed, I wouldn't have restored the report in the first place, and I certainly wouldn't have reverted you.

Anyway, in this case, should I go ahead and remove the other editor's edits again, and if they again revert, start a new case at ANEW? I want to do this correctly, so please help me with the next step. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people know about the reports, so adding language to the instructions seems unnecessary. We can't be explicit about everything. Gets too wordy. I'd have to look at the articles and the reverts to give you a definitive answer, but, generally, if a revert seems warranted and you are not edit warring by doing it, you should be okay. Just don't get sucked into a situation in which you are arugably as guilty as the user you're reporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look? As you say, I don't want to become just as guilty as the user I'm reporting. Carnival Is Forever is the main article in question. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would spend your time on the talk page of the article discussing the dispute and hopefully obtaining a consensus rather than reverting. Neither of you has breached 3RR, but both of you have been going back and forth.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give that a go, although I'm not expecting much to come of it (the IP has ignored every message I've left on their talk page). Thanks for the help. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement

Bbb23 I just wanted to point out an edit here[43] that seems to me to be walking a very fine line WRT WP:BLP. It describes a named individual as a "radical nutcase" and another individual as "a highly partisan author". This isn't the worst I've ever seen but CSDarrow's rhetoric and attitude is escalating into inappropriate territories (see also his extremely civil comments to me at NPOVN)--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, Cailil's intemperate tone and suggestions of filibustering are not helpful, here [44].— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm afraid CSDarrow I'm calling a spade a spade here. Filibustering is "a delaying tactic, especially the use of long, often irrelevant speeches given in order to delay progress or the making of a decision". The points made in the thread on that page are irrelevant and delaying progress. The matter has been asked and answered. It's time to move on. And to let other people move on and actually improve articles within wikipedia's framework for quality & standards. Rather than waste time with ad hoc and spurious reasons for excluding things and delaying progress for so long that others will be too exhausted to continue. Furthermore despite being frank there is nothing "intemperate" in my comments and I'm very very happy for any number of sysops to examine every single comment in that discussion by every single user in fine detail - in fact I'd encourage it--Cailil ^talk 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 could you have a look at this regarding filibustering[45]--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Under no circumstance should a living person be referred to as a "nutcase" on Wikipedia. WP:BLP applies to all of Wikipedia, including talkpages. I'm ashamed and embarrassed that this edit lasted as long as it did. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism

Per your previous locking of Radical feminism (Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked), User:Tutelary (at that time User:Ging287) is engaged in edit warring with a relatively new editor still learning the ropes. He just put an edit war notice on her talk page.
Given Tutelary's history there, on your talk page, re: Memills, at RSN discussion and elsewhere, I have to wonder if Tutelary is imposing a defacto men's rights viewpoint on the transgenderism part of the Radical feminism article. (And that topic already has it's own Sexology arbitration.
In this case the issue is that men's rights activists support transgenders (and themselves in some cases) being allowed into all-women's conferences, rest rooms, locker rooms, prisons, etc. and both paint dissenting Radical feminists as bigots and actively and even viciously harass them. This is well documented in RS and Tutlary also reverted this mention in the article. (I'm lost on current status of it all, frankly, with all the reverts.). There are a couple allusions to the association of some members of these groups in discussions. And today Tutelary brought up that "the model should be the Mens Rights article" regarding minority vs. majority viewpoints, again making me suspicious.
You certainly are more familiar than I with these issues and history. So FYI, in case you want to deal with it at your leisure, per your comment at "locked": "I think of this lock as not just a lock but also a warning to everyone that your edits may be scrutinized." Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I glanced at the editing history and the talk page, and I'd have to spend a ton of time to make sense of all the issues and how they are impacted by policy. I have no inclination to do that. If the only connection to the MRM is that one comment by Tutelary mentioning the "model" of the MRM article (nothing else stood out to me in my relatively perfunctory look), that certainly isn't enough for me to act based on the MRM sanctions. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just testing the waters of what's relevant. Guess it's an issue for the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sibtain

Hi Bbb23! It seems that this one is going to be a big mess - I'm sorry you got stuck with it. It probably won't help much, but going by off-wiki evidence, there are at least three groups at play. Mamadoutadioukone, whom I've known about for a while and I've been addressing where I can, has been using socks for paid editing. Svenstpaul, which is part of a small sock farm that I only stumbled across a couple of days ago, although I knew of the master through paid editing - I'll address that one myself, if you like, in the hope of finding a simple fix. And a third group which has been listed as Sibtain, but may or may not be - that one is a bigger pool of editors, including some good hand accounts, who do paid editing through multiple freelancer accounts. I originally thought that they were separate groups, but there is so much crossover in their editing that either it is a small group of separate people working together on paid contracts with socks, or one person running different identities on different freelancer sites, many of which were just shut down. The Skyheight23 group have been working on articles in common with this group.

I think that third group might in the end have two-three different masters, but it is hard to tell. Paid editing can make things complicated. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby, but I never got to the hard part because I messed up the "rearrangement" of the Sibtain and the Mama SPI pages. Unfortunately, the SPI clerk procedures covers only the most basic moves, and I've had to figure out the more complicated ones. I was actually getting better at it, but this one was different, and my understanding of how it would go was flawed. Worse, it's the first time I've come across a technical situation at Wikipedia that couldn't be backed out. Anyhow, I've brought it to the attention of various people, but I think everyone's gone to bed, so it'll remain in a suspended state until it's resolved. If you were to check the Sibtain page now, you'd find that it's been decimated (the archive is still intact). Anyway, even if there isn't a way to get it all back to the way it was, there's at least a way to get back most of it.

I'm feeling rotten and stressed about the whole thing, even though the more rational side of me knows that it's not the end of the world. We get a little carried away about the importance of things in this insular world we administrate. I'm feeling sorry for myself at the moment and going to bed soon. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't imagine that there is anything we can do from our end that can't be fixed. At least you didn't try deleting the front page - I always use that to remind myself of how my mistakes are relatively minor, although I have a list of horror stories I give to students about when I stuffed up in IT jobs. :) I can't help with technical problems, as I'd probably break it even worse, but that should be fixed soon. If you need any other help, though, I've been following these cases for a while in various ways, and I'm happy to do anything at all from my end to help. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy. I need it at the moment. I once blocked someone by mistake. Although I was horrified, I unblocked him fairly quickly. I was lucky, too. It was an editor who didn't give me grief about it. He even found it amusing given all the reasons I gave for the block (which, of course, were intended for someone else). Too bad we don't have more editors like him. As for your help, I appreciate it. The problem is I can't get to the substantive part until the technical part is fixed, and I'm leaving on a short vacation on Thursday and don't intend to touch Wikipedia while away, so either it will languish or it'll have to be taken care of after I return. Even tomorrow's a bad day for me because I have to work my regular job and I have to get ready for the trip. I usually try to avoid SPI clerking during the work week because it can be very demanding, and I don't have the time or the energy. I try to make up for it on the weekends. Here, though, I kinda promised I'd do something. Would that I hadn't. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried blocking by mistake yet, but I've got a long string of stupid rollbacks thanks to a touch screen, including one of Newyorkbrad. :) I can handle some of the accounts, and for the first time in a while I'm not overloaded at uni. I'll see what I can help out on during after surviving today's classes. - Bilby (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Zakir Naik

User:Understandingthetruth is an obvious (and now blocked) sock of User:Thetruthexposed879 that I blocked last night. Just FYI. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR and 108.225.190.118 / EvergreenBean

Looking at an incident from the 30th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:108.225.190.118_reported_by_User:Ian.thomson_.28Result:_Blocked.29)

It looks to me like you were roped into a violation of WP:GAME, rewarded bad behavior, issued a disruptive block, and bit a newcomer.

The article in question has a serious problem in its lead section. The content does not appear to be an accurate summary of the body of the article in emphasis or substance. Indeed, it looks like a kind of POV fork! The IP (who I think created an account "EvergreenBean") posted to the article talk page and appears to have been attempting to constructively address the deficiency, to be reverted multiple times by User:Ian.thomson. Thomson left goofy comments in the edit summaries about "white supremacism", "whitewashing", "censorship", which indicates that at least in the context of that edit war, he's not here to build an encyclopedia. A poster case of WP:POV RAILROAD.

Thomson knew Wikipedia process and the newcomer didn't; Thomson requested a block in order to secure a win in his edit war. I'd put in a request that he be blocked, but I'm only getting a sense of what happened now (when trying to figure out how to fix that lead section) and I don't believe blocks should be punitive.

I do think that the IP was verging on edit warring by responding too quickly to Thomson's disruptive edits. I don't think you did anything deliberately abusive. But the effect of the block appears to have been disruptive (in that it disrupted bona fide edits to bring an article into compliance with WP:LEAD), and you do come out of this with a bit of egg on your face.

Bkalafut (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive? Kooky? @Bkalafut:, would you feel better if I remove the article from my watchlist and WP:DROPIT? And perhaps you could demonstrate that behavior as well instead of being a hypocrite regarding personal attacks. I am insulted by the ignorant suggestion that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. You'd know I was here to build an encyclopedia if you checked my contributions, especially articles like Debtera or Magical Treatise of Solomon. You'd know that if you checked my edit count and saw that most of my edits are to article space (and that I regularly engage editors times almost 200 times as often as you, which would be pretty hard to do without getting in trouble if I wasn't here to build an encyclopedia).

You have no idea what you're talking about, and are attacking me while complaining about me admittedly going a bit far in describing someone who argued that sources demonstrating that British letters saying "let's give them smallpox" (followed by the Native Americans getting smallpox) wasn't adequate for anything more than "alleged."

So please, shut up and get over something that happened last week. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This post demonstrates the broader problem. I'm not going to engage about Pontiac's War, NPOV and WP:LEAD problems here. You don't get to write a POV lead that doesn't match the body of an article. Suffice it to say that your attitude and your WP:POV RAILROAD antics are now transparent--you could not even avoid carrying them over to this page. No amount of chest-thumping about edit counts compensates for your wild, fist-swinging tone, violation of policies (WP:LEAD, edit warring with the IP/EvergreenBean, WP:GAME, etc.) or manifest bad moral character.

I'll take you at your word that you are ordinarily constructive. If you can't write this particular article's lead section with a neutral point of view, can't avoid slandering a contributor by mischaracterizing the dispute even days later, please refrain from the article that's making you disruptive,@Ian.thomson:. But we're getting away from the point. The point of posting here was to make Bbb23 aware that he (that's the gender-neutral "he") unwittingly made a disruptive block and to put your disruptive behavior on his radar. If you're going to defend yourself, this juvenile "Bkalafut contributed X and I contributed 100X" is not the way to do it.Bkalafut (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My point about the number of edits wasn't any sort of edit count privilege, but pointing out that if I acted in as much bad faith as you assumed from me, I'd've gotten into a lot more trouble by now. I pointed out articles I've put a lot of work into to demonstrate that your claims that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia are incompetently lacking in evidence (if I assume more good faith than you did from me).

If your point was purely about Bbb23's actions, you should not have mentioned me in ways that amount to personal attacks.

I'm willing for us to drop this drama, go our separate ways, and continue building an encyclopedia. Are you, @Bkalafut:? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone's leaving goofy comments in the edit summaries it's not a personal attack to call the comments goofy. If this was about you (and not Bbb23--why did you even show up here?) it was about bad behavior. Putting bad behavior into words is not the same as making a personal attack. And when you make accusations that anonymous IPs are "white supremacists" and game the system to get the upper hand in an edit war, the assumption of good faith is wiped out by observation of bad faith. But yes. Let's move on. Bkalafut (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I was roped into anything. Ian wasn't the only one reverting the IP, and the IP merited the block. However, I did also warn Ian about his languge here. Unless there's something new here, I consider this a closed issue, and I'm glad at the end you both decided to "move on".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reer Woqooyi

Hi Bbb23. The User:Reer Woqooyi appears to be block evading again. A dynamic ip is pushing similar pov related to the Puntland-Somaliland dispute from the same Dubai ip address (new: [46], [47]; previous: [48], [49]). You suggested a possible range block if the disruption continues, which appears to be the situation. Could you please have a look? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, could you please do me a favor and put together a list of the IPs Woqooyi has used? The only way I can evaluate a possible range block is to know the parameters of the range. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Here are some of Woqooyi's Dubai ones (217.164.177.144, 217.164.178.195, 217.164.185.80), and here are the new Dubai ips (217.164.177.219, 217.164.188.227, 217.164.189.43, 217.164.177.224, 217.164.177.44, 217.164.182.154, 217.164.188.30, 217.164.184.21, 217.164.181.138, 217.164.179.36). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Using 217.164.77.44 as the lowest in that group and 217.164.189.43 as the highest, I get "217.164.0.0/16 (up to 65536 users would be blocked)" from here. I need confirmation of that and an opinion as whether that's too many to rangeblock. I'm not an expert, but I don't think we normally are willing to block that large a range, but it may also depend on the kind of IPs, so I'm pinging someone who knows more than I do about this: Phil?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've checkusered the range and if we were to range block there would be a few IP editors who would have to create accounts to continue editing. I could block for 1 week on a {{anonblock}} basis, and see if that helps? PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil, I'm afraid I don't understand whatyou mean by an "anonblock basis". Does that differ from a "normal" rangeblock? My guess is one week would be kinda short for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I just mean a normal range block - Special:Block/217.164.0.0/16 - with the first box ticked to prevent account creation, and the last box not ticked to allow logged in users to edit normally. Otherwise, I agree that 1 week is a little short, but on the other hand, even this would cause some collateral damage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we'll find out how much good it did after the week is over. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23 and User:PhilKnight. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

He has another sock as well called Kurlibah; which is being plan disruptive. AcidSnow (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean sock but it seems you are accusing me of being that banned reer waqooyi person. i think the adminstrators can see who is who. so far i did nothing distruptive but you are the one who is dictating me. ironically you are accusing me before i accused you ! reer waqooyi means the northerner (somaliland location of east africa) so i can understand this banned person is from somaliland. clearly acid does not like any body who is interested about somaliland pages and thats the reason he/she put my name here. Kurlibah (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed User:AcidSnow. Kurlibah looks to be either another Reer Woqooyi sock or meatpuppet. Please also see here. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U for user problems

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor to help address problems with this user. Please feel free to add your own issues in the appropriate sections, endorse, or add comments on the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Complaint

	Complaint to Bbb23
	You deleted my sandbox page but I am just experimenting in the sandbox. That's what a sandbox is for. I have no idea why you deleted it, it's just silly. Don't do it again. Thank you! Cleveland24 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR and Syrian Civil War Sanctions Notice

During a recent dispute when Worldedixor brought me to your page for perceived infractions of the 1RR restriction imposed on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page, in your first response to Worldedixor here, you say that I had been officially notified of the sanctions (which I had been, although I hadn't thought it was to do with ISIS editing as I said in a later thread). This cannot have had anything to do with editing on the ISIS page as far as I can tell because this was the first time that my supposed infractions there were raised. You found that I had not infringed the 1RR, I have never broken any other rule as far as I am aware, and I am not clear on what grounds was I not only sent the notification but put on the 2014 warnings list. I know some time has passed since then, but I would still like any answer to my question, please. It irks me that I am on some sort of blacklist when as far as I am aware I have done nothing wrong. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, the alert is not considered a "sanction" and is frequently posted on the talk pages of editors who've done nothing wrong. You're going to have to change your somewhat defensive perception of it and not be "irked". Also, when you post to my talk page, please do it in the normal way so the time is appended to your name (I manually added it). If you don't, the bot archiving this page will leave the post there indefinitely. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Bbb23 for blocking Luke's talk page access. I think you might have accidentally reduced his block to one day.[50] Perhaps you could increase it back to 48 hours, if not two weeks or if not indefinitely. Wifione ^Message 20:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the block expires at precisely the same time. He was blocked on 12 September at 23:46 for 48 hours, and it still expires on 14 September at 23:46, 48 hours later. I don't see how I can increase his block after saying I wouldn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. No problems. Wifione ^Message 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MRM sanctions/CSDarrow

Hi Bbb23, you wrote that any editor who continues to edit the marital rape paragraph without a clear consensus risks being blocked. Today CSDarrow removed the disputed paragraph again without a consensus. That's his third (1, 2, 3) removal of the sentence in the course of a few days. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that what is there atm is incorrect/un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not knowingly publish incorrect information, there is also a clear consensus on that. The way this is playing out I am beginning to feel all of this, including my last block, should probably go to WP:ArbCom. Other arbitration is unlikely to work due to the depth of the division. CSDarrow (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus and at least four editors who disagree with you who. Your arguments are dishonest and you are gaming the system to remove content from an article that you personally dislike --5.81.51.85 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow that's completely wrong. You were shown numerous more sources that contradict you. Furthermore you were warned already that your refusal to get the point WRT those sources is/was tendentious. You're now disrupting wikipedia to make a point--Cailil ^talk 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• FYI: Following this discussion on Drmies talk page, HJ Mitchell blocked CSDarrow for a year. On a different note, the number of unconstructive IP edits seems to be increasing on the MRM page. Does the level of disruption warrant semi-protection? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is away - it mght be better to ask another uninvolved sysop--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, although still proceeding somewhat slowly. I agree with both the unblock and the subsequent reblock for a year. Looks like the situation, at least with respect to this editor, is under control.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to be under control. Welcome back! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sarabveer

Hi Bbb23, User:Sarabveer is back and is again reverting to his full of problems version at Akhand Kirtani Jatha without engaging in any discussions. Can you block him again and lock the article?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally block him for the one edit adding an image to the article. However, I believe that the IP's edit restoring the problematic version is clearly the same person. Therefore, I blocked them both for two weeks for socking. Just to document this for the future, see here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for acting. I had meant the IP editor only. In fact, he had not logged in and added the image at the time I contacted you. I didn't get, why you linked to this steam community website? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Sanctions

Would the admin please take note of this Wikipedia policy and respond. Wikipedia:Disruptive_sanctions I feel the actions of the admin are discussed within the linked document and the admin here is conducting their admin role not in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia. I have observed others have also raised concerns.

--Pennine rambler (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive_sanctions is an essay, not a policy the panda ₯’ 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

River Stumpf's new accounts

I just found out his new accounts Myheartisopen, Myheartisopen2, and Myheartisopen3

Myheartisopen is clearly contains "River Stumpf", it must be him. 115.164.186.182 (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I blocked #1 and #2. #3 is not a real user; he just created a phony user page, which I deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Need some help/suggestions

Hi Bbb23, I come here to seek your suggestions about dealing with User:Jujhar.pannu. This user is problematic in many ways. Main problems are slow edit warring, NPOV editing, pasting same text verbatim in 2 articles, refusing to listen. They often display lack of basic English comprehension. As they do not edit on a regular basis, any attempt to discuss content are often not productive. Could you suggest me the right course of action. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Without specific articles or edits you're concerned with, the only advice I have is general. What you're talking about is user conduct, but to stop someone who is being disruptive but not in a bright-line policy way (like a breach of 3RR) is not easy. I would focus on the articles where you think he demonstrates misbehavior in the most glaring way. Take the problems to the talk page (reverting once or twice should be okay if you wish to try that first) and try to obtain a consensus. If you can establish a consensus and he defies that consensus, then you would take whatever evidence you have to AN or ANI. Just be sure you have enough for taking that step. Unfortunately, it requires a certain amount of work on your part, and nothing obligates you to do it, but if you don't wish to, don't let yourself get too hot under the collar or angry about it because that could lead to problems for you, and it's simply not worth it. Also, depending on the problem, you can take it to one of the non-administrative notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia on mobile

May I have my edits reinstated on Manor of Rivington they took hours due to trying to edit on an Android device. The mobile site is very difficult to edit via and has a habit of rejecting my password or logging me out. My edits were not disruptive and causing no problems. Thanks --Pennine rambler (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to the message on my talk page. I have edited articles on Wikipedia for over 7 years. I agreed not to edit for a week as you stated on an article. It has been considerably longer than a week. Today I added information recently published. This was added overnight. Is the requirement that I never edit the article again? The other editor has said he was ceasing to edit I have not edited to start an edit war. I added citations and improved the wording. I do not understand the problem here. I do not understand why you wiped away every edit I have done on the article. Would you explain why that action has been taken there were no issues with edits as far as I am aware. If I had been made aware of any issues I would not has wasted hours. Please have the courtesy to reply. I am ceasing editing whilst this is resolved.--Pennine rambler (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made a number of requests for an explanation. I have had no response.--Pennine rambler (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Pennine rambler: Admins have real lives too. It may take a couple of days for a response. As this is a volunteer project, and one with no time limit, you're not owed a response immediately. You'll need patience if you intend to edit Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Pennine rambler, it would have been easier for me if you had left my warning on your talk page and responded there, particularly as it had the link to AN3 report. In any event, you are correct about the one week. Somehow, because the other editor was taking it off their watchlist, I assumed you were doing the same, but your only promise was the one week. Therefore, I have restored your edits, and I apologize for the warning and the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed remove the article from my watchlist but I do look at the WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria watchlist from time to time. Pennine Rambler doesn't have carte blanche to remove referenced information from the article. He needed to explain some things before reinstating his pov. Can he explain why he wants to remove "John Andrews sold his interests in the manor and estate to William Lever" which has two reliable references and is willing to edit war, not just with me, about it? What justifies removing the two reliable references (the book by William Fergusson Irvine (1904). A short history of the township of Rivington and the Victoria County History website for Farrer, William; Brownbill, J., eds. (1911). "Rivington". A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (British History Online)) used throughout the article for "Lancashire & North West Magazine, August 2014"? What makes the magazine a more reliable source? J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I didn't think you would like Pennine's edits. However, you're going to have to work out the content issues without edit warring. I'm not going to mediate that dispute. If there's a conduct issue, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert and edit summary

where does *this* come from?[51]

Thanks for reverting me with an edit summary that makes no sense. "Where does this come from?" How am I supposed to respond to that? Are you implying with your revert and edit summary that the edit warring policy does not apply to admins? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was more than you deserved. You made a significant change to a core policy. Your edit summaries were perfunctory ("add" "ce"). You did not raise your proposed change anywhere that I know of (that's the "where does this come from"). What you did shows very poor judgment. Your change will not occur without either an extended RfC on the policy talk page (just a discussion isn't good enough), or a proposal at WP:VPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment and with your bureaucratic approach. I did not make a "significant" change to any core policy. Admins should not be edit warring nor acting as involved on the 3RR board. Stating that fact is hardly a significant change. That you actually argue that an extended RfC is needed to make a fact explicit shows who has the poor judgment here. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not worry too much about an extended RFC, I don't think the modification will gain even a basic level of consensus. It is redundant and undue. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hi. A user is making very strange changes in Cyprus-related articles like Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus and others. (For example in the section titled Ottoman Era they delete everything sourced and there for a long time and replace it with unsourced speculations which are not even related to the time span! Ah and they claim WP is a huge lie and Turkish propaganda. And does this several times in a short period...) I think we need an admin who could explain them how Wikipedia functions either in Greek or in simple English because the user neither listens to me and other ordinary users nor -apparently- understands what we are trying to transmit. Please don't tell me to use the discussion page; there are people with whom one can discuss and others with whom that is simply impossible. Please do not refrain from intervening. Thank you very much and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? has been engaged in a long-running edit war on Turkish invasion of Cyprus and now seems to have moved onto Northern Cyprus - in both articles he has refused to interact with any editors on the talk pages. Some of the edits he makes includes adding off-topic material like the history of EOKA, and a lot of the edit warring is over seeming trivialities like whether 40% of Cyprus is under Turkish occupation or whether it is actually 37%. Not one of Why should I have a User Name?'s edits have been accompanied by talk page justifications. If you want to intervene, first give him a stern talking-to about the proper use of talk pages and edit summaries. The other editor, GiorgosY, is at least making some attempts at talk page engagement and refrains from filling his edit summaries with personal insults designed to further inflame the edit war. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked User:GiorgosY for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Almost all of his edits are severely problematic. Engaging on a talk page while disruptively editing the article doesn't save you from sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My edits were well sourced (e.g library of the USA congress,) and had no lie on what so ever. They were also well explained. Every edit had an explanation of the why. They were made in articles which was a clear effort on hiding the truth and portraying things against my country Cyprus in a non-realistic way, something that I also had explained with well respected sources. On the contrary the users Why should I have a User Name and AlexFlemming were making a war against me, the user Why should I have a User Name tried to threaten me not to do any edits, like people have no right to add well sourced material, then he deleted all my edits and keep deleting them, and then he also reported me for this. I am wondering if you have checked the history of it, I am wondering if you have checked what those articles were saying and their relation with well respected sources and I am also wondering, if the article of Northern Cyprus, which I have let untouched for the time being, is an article that has anything to do with the truth, in relation with what respectable sources are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Azhar Sabri

Since you were the last person to delete "Azhar Sabri (poet)", I think I should let you know that another article has been created about the same person, this time as Azhar Sabri. with a period on the end of the name. I have nominated it for deletion. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted by another admin. However, I have left a warning on the creator's talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Block expired - disruption resumed

Hello Bbb23,

I am sorry to bother you again with this old story: the block of banned User:Danrolo's IP 201.239.253.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expired and he has resumed his disruptive editing once again, including unverifiable changes and additions, fake references (citing sources that in fact do not support the claims) and even edit-warring at Union for a Popular Movement. I am afraid that the block needs to be renewed. Thanks in advance, --RJFF (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I blocked him for one year. I'll leave any clean-up to you. I just spent a long time cleaning up after a named account sock. It's very tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring

Hey there! Just stalking the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. It looks like this revert was marked minor. I don't think it matters a whit, but someone is bound to jump on it. Just an FYI... Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tgeairn, but, unfortunately, by the time I saw your post, it was already happily jumped on. If you want to see my explanation, you can read my response to the jump. It's not particularly interesting, but I'm sure it will be interpreted as incompetence (to some extent it already was in the jump). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are times when I'd just accept faith - good faith can sometimes be too much to expect. Back to it... Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sibtain 007 SPI

Hi. In your opinion, does the Sibtain 007 SPI need to be kept open any longer? Or can it safely be closed now? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just closed it. Explaynation at Callanecc's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)