User talk:Bbb23/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Re. Protection of the Paul Ryan Article

To say that my "Basis for protection request is flawed" is a little harsh don't you think? While you may be right in not protecting it. As the Potential V.P. Of the United States, I feel that a request to protect it was not "flawed" or irrational. Thanks for your consideration. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize. It was flawed, but I didn't need to say so, at least not without explaining why. I've removed the sentence from my decline. However, for your benefit here, normally one asks for protection of an article because of current and ongoing problems with the article, not because of possible problems in the future. Your statement that it needed full protection was based on Ryan's future possible status. Even if you had said it was based on him being announced as Romney's running mate, that wouldn't have helped. In the future, when you make a request, state your reason as something that is happening to the article now and in the recent past. Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He meant that we do not protect articles preemtively. In this case, protection of any sort will probably stop more improvements than vandalism. Protection can be considered once vandalism starts occurring. On a related note, Bbb23, do you know if pending changes will be used pre-emtively? Ryan Vesey 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to pay as little attention to pending changes as I can, Ryan, although I suppose I will be forced to pay more attention once it's implemented (again).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unban request of User:Shakinglord

I was wondering if only an Admin can close this discussion[1] I was going to close it because I don't foresee it coming out to a consensus to unban the banned editor.Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David, it's premature to close the discussion until a consensus is declared.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but just for my knowledge how many oppose votes/what would be considered a consensus? and even though it is to early, would it be out of line for a non admin to close the discussion? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A consensus is built not on numbers but on the depth of the arguments. As a non-admin, you always have to be careful when closing a discussion at AN or ANI. Very few have the experience and confidence to do it. In this instance, I think it would be best to let an admin handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, for explaining it. I will leave it to a Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with Sandbox

I accidently created a extra sandbox would you mind helping me with deleting it [[2]] also could you explain to me how to get my talk to archive automatically. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the sandbox for you. As for automatic archiving, it sort of depends on how you want it to archive. I'm not an expert on this, either, so my suggestion is you read about it and decide what you'd like. Then, if you can't figure out how to do it, try contacting User:Bearian, a very knowledgeable fellow about this sort of thing, and I'm sure he'll help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain

how outright deletion of rather lengthy point-by-point comments at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement like you did here is conducive to editing? Timbouctou (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you don't have the right to refactor Sunil's comments simply because you think it's a better approach to rebutting them, particularly when they asked you not to already. You can make whatever appropriate comments you like but separately from Sunil's.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Sunil had a problem with it he should have edited the discussion and moved my comments down, not simply deleted them. And you shouldn't have assisted him in deleting comments he does not like by confirming his censorship and deleting them again. Not to mention his weird idea of voting on the style that the article should be written in. Timbouctou (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the burden was on you to move your comments, which I see you've done - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious talk page editing

Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. Please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on Shadow's other posts, I would say this one is pretty much on the same level. I wouldn't fret about it, and I wouldn't let yourself be goaded. If you want to respond, susbtantively not personally, fine; or you can just leave it alone. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I though am wondering of this is FerreFour? Sport and politics (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it amazing just how speedily HeCameFromTheShadows has reacted. When I have had no interactions with HeCameFromTheShadows except for that one response they made to my input on the 2012 Olympics Controversy Talk Page. Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're starting to annoy me. I found your posts when I checked your contributions to see if you were online, something I do every time for editors I respond to, as I'm sure others do to. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep repeating my response each time I find this user talking about me behind my back, so here's a link to what I said when he said this exact same thing to someone else the first time [3]. I fail to see what I've done for this editor to be running around calling a perfectly reasonable post, "suspicious". HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, S&P came here in good faith to ask me a question. We discussed it. Shadows responded, which is fine, but I see no point in continuing the discussion. So, no more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Need an explanation

As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this comment about? -- Avanu (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain something. Your comment comes across as insulting. It implies that I simply want to disrespect the rules and guidelines of the process of dispute resolution there. If you will actually look at the sequence of events for that 'dispute', you will see that I took action to correct this problem after AndyTheGrump brought it up on his User Talk page. I reverted the 'See Also' links and left an explanation that IjonTichy needed to avoid a link farm, and I *also* took the question to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, in an attempt to get more editors involved in the debate, so I wouldn't have to become involved myself. In addition, I have been engaging IjonTichy in discussion at the The Zeitgeist Movement Talk page and while he hasn't agreed with my points yet, he has avoided edit warring, and has been willing to discuss. After asking whether this is a genuine problem for DRN to handle, the first response I get from you is a very offputting and unhelpful one. Meanwhile an editor who actually seems focused on solving this, OpenFuture, responded with a thoughtful reply that was on target and helpful. While this is somewhat of a content dispute, it is not simply going to be as cut and dry as you might like, and sometimes we need to ensure that people have left their personalities at the door. OpenFuture and Ebe123 clearly have lost some of their patience in dealing with IjonTichy and I was working to get them focused on the issues at hand. How about in the future, rather than taking an approach that is very offputting, you take a moment to look past the immediate situation and work for actual resolution of disputes, rather than creating new ones? -- Avanu (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a very polite comment and had nothing to do with what preceded the DRN topic or anything collateral to it. I was simply trying to get editors to stay on content topic as the board's rules ask. OpenFuture's comment was NOT helpful, not here or on the article's Talk page, to the extent he talks about Ijon not listening (even if OF is right). The substance of OF's comment was fine, and he should have left it at that. In any event, another admin has correctly asked that the whole thing at DRN be closed because, in his view (and in mine), the issue is fairly cut and dried. More time and more energy have been spent on this article than it even comes close to deserving, and that is largely Ijon's fault, but DRN is just not the place to air it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct there. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Move protection

I don't know how admin tools work, but I think it is similar to a checkbox, like in Special:Preferences. At the moment, the page is protected against non-autoconfirmed editors (at the end, any person with 10 edits or more + s/he has been 4 days here will become autoconfirmed). If you want to make a full move-protection, you should change the "autoconfirmed" to "sysop", for example: Gray mouse lemur, which can give you an idea. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the page is indefinitely move-protected against non-autoconfirmed editors. I don't want to change that to be more protective. Are you saying there shouldn't be any template at the top of an article like that?

There are four move templates. The "dispute" and "vandalism" templates don't apply. Thus, we are left with indef and the most generic, {{pp-move}}. Seems like indef is best, although it doesn't explain what it means by "high-visibility" pages - somehow I don't think this is one. All it says it does is put the page into a category. The generic one appears to both put the page into a category and add a green icon - don't ask me why it does that and indef doesn't. In any event, neither works because I get an error message when I try to add it. Ironically, the only reason I even applied indefinite move protection was to carry something over from a previous admin action done earlier. I have no other basis for move-protecting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

Sorry, I hadn't realised IMDb was not an acceptable source, so Thank You for correcting the citation I had added; I'm not very good at this sort of thing and hopefully you'll bear with me :-). I did find another reference where SL is shown as scriptwriter for 'Murder In Mind' (http://www.startrader.co.uk/Action%20TV/guide2000/murdermind.htm) but don't know if it can be used as it's just one of the programmes, or if it's an acceptable source?

I know the page is protected but didn't feel the citations I was including were in anyway applicable to the 'disputed' section, so guessed it was okay to update them.

Would you mind giving me a little more advice re: the 'Allegations' section on the page, please? I have put a comment on the Talk page, trying to explain why I did the initial deletion; I only deleted it once and since then have only added citations I have managed to find.

Would it be reasonable to ask for the section under discussion to be 'parked' until other sources can be found? Is there a length of time which would be considered reasonable for other references backing up the Guardian piece to be supplied? Or will it just be left as it is? I did briefly try to see if I could find any other references but any I came across were blogs - I have twigged to blogs not being reliable sources, so I am learning, albeit slowly :-)

I hope you don't mind me posting this on your Talk page; I wasn't sure where else to put it. Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have too many things going on right this moment and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. It was fine for you to come here. I'll get back to you with a better response as soon as I can. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, not a problem. I do appreciate everyone has a life and do all this on a voluntary basis with many demands on their time :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article and left a comment on the Talk page. If you still feel that the allegation material is inappropriate, you might raise it at WP:BLPN. As for the startrader reference, I don't think that's a reliable source. It strikes me as a personal website without the usual fact-checking we expect from reliable sources. If you want to pursue that issue, you can pass it by WP:RSN and ask other editors' opinions. I hope that helps a little. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, even if I can't get to them right away.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and input over this, it really is very much appreciated. I see another editor has incorporated your re-wording and comprehensively re-vamped the article. I do feel this is a more than acceptable compromise and will post a short message on the article Talk page to reflect this.  :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the message from the other editor (at the bottom of this page), but I haven't had a chance to look at what they did. Nonetheless, I'm glad you're pleased.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

I see that you have protected the Stephen Leather page. I wanted to come here so that you could have a heads up that I am going to be doing some major revisions to the article. Thought you would like to know as you are probably watching the page. Hopefully these changes will clear up any issues of NPOV. I also left a message on the talk page for the other editors involved in a discussion (although they look like they have only come to Wikipedia for that specific article so not sure if they are NPOV). It should only take me about 10 minutes to complete all of the edits as they are waiting in my sandbox. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Done - I am thinking about breaking out his books and creating an article just for his list of books but I will look at it at a later date (I am burned out from tracking down all of the ISBN's for the books listed. --Morning277 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria

Hi! Could you please explain why you keep reverting my edits to the Fareed Zakaria page? My edits tighten the entry without losing any information, consolidate disjointed sections, and restore NPOV. Thanks! Bitton100 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute handling

I must thank you for the way you stepped in on my talkpage, as well as the article talkpage, not just dismissing me as just another troublemaking, problematic IP user and moving forward. Maybe it's me, but I simply do not know what the deal was with user Cresix. I mean, I made what I believe to be harmless, legitimate edits based not only on my awareness of the character, but the rest of the article. He then comes in one day and reverts a whole slew of my edits and without giving any reason. When he finally does provide a reason with another revert, he criticizes the length. So I say fair enough, scale it down and he's still reverting me before repeatedly instating his warnings on my userpage, and reporting me on the administrative noticeboards. I think anyone can tell by my history of edits, I'm no vandal. But again, if I created any problems or inconvenience to you whatsoever, I do sincerely apologize and thank you again. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. No one is accusing you of being a vandal; however, you do need to watch your reversions. Technically, I could have blocked you for making 4 reverts (many admins consider the first change a revert), but I didn't think that was the right thing to do in the circumstances. But please be careful in the future, and don't get carried away.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Thanks and duly noted. I'll be more careful in the future as advised. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

50 reverts and counting

There are over 50 combined reverts at Snooker season 2012/2013 that have continued after protection was requested, after an ANEW report was created, and after talk page discussion was started. Can you step in? Ryan Vesey 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Drmies handled it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Ironholds, but everything's good. Thanks for checking. Ryan Vesey 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw Drmies's response at RFPP and assumed he did it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Block of VictoriaR2020 - exceptions to an unblock with conditions?

VictoriaR2020 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for edit warring, is asking to be unblocked. The block was valid, but she's making a case that she's willing to follow the rules. I'm willing to unblock, on condition that she accept a 0RR restriction on the Lesley Arfin article for the remainder of the 24 hours she would have been blocked. Are those terms acceptable to you? —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments at her Talk page. Your first sentence was exactly what I was about to put in as my comment (I got an edit conflict). If you're satisfied with those terms, I have no problem with it. Thanks for checking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989

I guess I should've checked the block log on User:Fry1989 before engaging at ANEW. I could have had a different conversation there. Thanks for the catch, and the cleanup. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it was an unusual report to analyze.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Favor

Hey Bbb23, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tomica, I won't have time to get to this today. If you can wait, fine; if not, please ask another admin. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks anyway. — Tomica (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this on the talk page of Loud (Rihanna album). I would suggest waiting until that discussion is over, although odds are good it will end up being that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rewrite

While page protection was a good solution, 3RR clearly states that: "(...)then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a "uw-3rr" template message on their user talk page." (Emphasis mine) If the warning is required then a rewrite is in order, as the report what complex enough to make without considering that the advice given was incorrect. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make this suggestion at the Talk page of WP:3RR. In this and in many instances, admins prefer to see a warning before blocking, paricularly if the editor is new or might be new (hard to tell with IP addresses).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done so. Do you have an opinion on this? 85.167.111.129 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I do, I'll express it there. Thanks for following through.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock & Roll Over Tour

I saw your explanation for nominating the aforementioned article for deletion and have to disagree. This tour is proven to exist in both Gene Simmons' and Ace Frehley's autobiographies. Also, there are far more better articles to be deleted because of lack of source or primary source only, like this one or this one. Also, it is hard to find other sources for a tour that happened 36 years ago. Since the band had all its tours featured in an article, the Rock & Roll Over Tour article should be re-created. Cheers Zrinschchuck Zrinschchuck 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Zrinschchuck. A few comments. First, the fact there may be other articles more worthy of deletion doesn't make an article notable. Second, the mere existence of the tour doesn't make it notable. Third, difficulty in finding sources isn't going to wash, either. All that said, based on the kind of deletion by the deleting admin, you could make a request at WP:REFUND.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the content of this template

Can you tell me what the content of {{Codenowiki}} was? I wanted to create a template that looked like this: <includeonly><code><nowiki></includeonly>{{{1|}}}<includeonly></includeonly></nowiki> but I saw that the template I was going to create had been deleted in the past. Was it the same template? If so, can I take a template to deletion review, or would it go back to TfD. I feel it is ridiculous not to have it with a redirect from {{Cnw}}. Ryan Vesey 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind showing you what the last version looks like, but I can't make it display properly here. If you help me with that, I'll show it to you rather than my deciding wehther what you wrote above is "the same". I don't know where you request the undeletion of a template. I looked around but got tired of looking after a while. Maybe one of my Talk page stalkers knows.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mine doesn't actually display correctly here either. Perhaps you could replace the content of User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox 2 with the content of the template? Thanks for your reply, and sorry for my slow one. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Done (I think). Let me know if it's okay. My initial reply was slow also, mainly because I had no idea what I was doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989

The conversation on User talk:Fry1989 has veered in different directions, but overall I feel that 1RR/week restriction was over the top, I am satisfied that a standard 1RR restriction would suffice, because reverts are not a concern. I see civility as the real problem, so that's what we're discussing now. Need to involve the blocking admin at some point, but I have to quit for the day. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the April blocking admin. That's User:Toddst1. I notified Todd earlier here. I don't feel any "ownership" as to the terms of Fry's return; I'm happy to have your input. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I'm wondering why you only blocked one of the parties on involved on the dispute on Rumi, but did not take any action against User:Barayev who had also violated WP:Editwar, appears to be a WP:SPA with a few edits (55 edits, registered last week, but has expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia codes etc, all red flags) in a topical area that has seen many banned nationalist users resurrecting under new names. He is also refusing mediation, and insisting on using questionable nationalistic WP:Fringe sources which contradict mainstream academic accounts on this subject. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that Barayev stopped editing the article. Procedurally, Barayev was in a similar position to Khodabandeh except he had not been warned of edit-warring (a fairly important requirement). Arguably, Khodabandeh had not been warned, either, but that's because of his peculiar wish to keep his Talk page fully protected. In any event, despite repeated attempts by my to get Khodabandeh to understand that edit-warring wasn't permissible even if everything he said about the content and the situation were true, he reverted yet again.

Since that time, two editors have "restored" the article to "stable" versions, you being the second. The first, Gabriel Stijena, is a newer editor than Barayev and with even fewer edits. I also note that you started a section about your version. Frankly, I don't know anything about the content of the article or the content dispute, but I am watching the article in terms of editor conduct. If you believe that Barayev or Gabriel are sock accounts, then you need to file a report at WP:SPI. Otherwise, you kind of have to deal with with you've got and try to sort out the content issues on the Talk page (or other content dispute resolution forums) without battling in the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not just protect the article for a couple of weeks, so that everyone is forced to concentrate on discussions or RFC/Mediation dispute resolution methods, and prevent further possible socking by hit-and-run kamikaze accounts which are used to bait the long-standing editors into breaking 3RR. Don't you find it a bit suspicious that two brand new users have jumped into an edit-war on this article? WP:SPI is pointless here, as there is no suspect but rather suspicious behavior raising all kinds of red flags. Knowingly sing fringe content in Wikipedia, should be treated as a behavioral issue. I understand that you're not familiar with this subject, but please take look at the comment of an administrator, addressing another edit by one these SPAs on Rumi. [4] Kurdo777 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kurdo, after your first post, I started looking into some of the possible problems you've mentioned. I'll continue looking and see if there's some way I - or someone else - can help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the right approach for now, protection can be tried if people refuse to participate on the talk page and just go back to warring. Protection is better than warring, but people willingly talking on the talk page is still better than protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm not too familiar with SPI process, is it possible for you to initiate a check on these three editors [5][6][7] ? I suspect that these two SPAs are somehow connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus.[8] Also, please note the personal attacks against me here.[9] This is what I meant by baiting. The personal attacks seem to be deliberate, to get a reaction from me. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo, I saw your post asking Dennis to look here. I'm going to let him address your questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the problem here is that I am not familiar with the subject matter, which makes a determination much more difficult and requires a technical behavioral comparison in order to justify asking a checkuser run a full check, and that takes more time that I have this evening. I will try to look at it, but it would likely be better to find an admin who is more familiar with the subject matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, are you the advocate of Khodabandeh, or just a sockpuppet of someone? Who are you? And why do you accuse all the editors, which you encounter, with nationalistic or any other reasons. I've just observed your recent edits and seen that you're here to have a specific purpose to help several editors in their reverts etc. I invite the administrators to check your recent edits, which all seems for a specific purpose. Barayev (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Barayev, in the last hour you have made 5 reversions in 5 different articles in which you have labeled Kurdo's contributions vandalism. Using the label "vandalism" when it doesn't apply is a personal attack and disruptive. Stop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Eve Torres~

No prob. Lion share of rapport's been on his talk page, edit-summaries and nothing more. I'm sure SCWA has the best intentions but he doesn't get along so well collaborating with others. I'll keep abreast of it and bring anything else of note up. Thanks. Papacha (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put SCWA and the Torres article on my watchlist, but feel free to come here if you think a problem needs attention. Obviously, if for some reason I'm not available, you can always seek help at any appropriate noticeboard. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vvarkey is back to his old ways

User:Vvarkey is back to deleting info which is contrary to his agenda to paint one group as culprits, He has entirely deleted paragraph which presented the view of the group involved. I believe this is not how NPOV on wikipedia was meant to work.

Do take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack&diff=507700724&oldid=507536752

I'm not getting involved in this matter this time. Hope you or some other editors takes up the matter. good luck trying to talk sense to him.WBRSin (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you not battle with him in the article but that you do re-engage him on the article Talk page. Create a new section (don't add to the old one) and focus on the specific content (present and/or removed) that you find problematic. Don't talk about things like agenda. Just keep it fact-specific and concise. If that doesn't work, use WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but as I have specified earlier "I'm not getting involved" again. I see no reason talking to a stone, he has no interest in presenting a neutral view. I will devote my time editing some other articles. Good bye. WBRSin (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The same group editors

Please take a look at this [10], he just broke 3RR, in order to insert an sourceless map WP:OR map[11], and remove a scholar's reference. I understand that most admin don't understand the content, but this is an obvious case of nationalist disruption, which compromises Wikipedia's integrity. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that he's been warned of edit-warring or that you've taken the content dispute to the article Talk page. You should do both. Then, if necessary, you should file a report at WP:ANEW. If you believe that there is sock or meat puppetry going on, you should file a report at WP:SPI. I know this is all a lot of work, but it will help in the long term.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now warned him of the edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at his page User:Greczia, it says, in small font, at the bottom, and I qoute "I used to have another account previously which has been permanently deactivated on my own request". Now a closer look at his previous account User:Tirgil34 shows that it was disruptive nationalist editor that had been warned and blocked several times for this kind of nonsense. Further review shows that he had a history of abusing sock-puppets which is what I suspect is going on, right now. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at this SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't understand the new SPI process or else I'd have filled a request a long time ago. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What don't you understand? At a minimum, you need to decide which accounts you think are related based on some evidence. Then, you figure out which is the oldest account, and that would be the master. If it turns out that the master is actually a puppet of some other account, that would hopefully be determined at SPI. Your job is to make a credible report based on your observations. The link I provided is the result of an investigation. You wouldn't want to resurrect the same accusation that has already been investigated unless you have evidence subsequent to the closure of the last investigation. Does that help at all, or is it still too confusing? Sock puppet stuff is tough (for me, too).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

He made yet another partial revert, after your warning, restoring the disputed map. [12] This is now 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI is easy. The oldest account is the master, the new account is the sock. Give us one or two paragraphs, no more. 6 diffs if you can, more is fine but keep it simple and clean. Long reports get ignored, no one wants to read all that. Don't sweat the format, if you screw it up, we will fix it, we don't mind, that is what we do. Basically, the SPI report should only be long enough to convince us that it is worth looking at, it doesn't have to prove guilt, only be rational and show a valid reason to think their is a link. And short. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reports of more than one word are rejected. :-) Thanks, Dennis.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, try working them :p I see that he has officially linked himself at User talk:Tirgil34. The previous account isn't socking itself, since it is declared, although I did indef someone who changed their accounts 9 times in two years the other day, for disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I followed the Tirgil34 thing to find the link (above) to the closed investigation.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-production movies in filmography tables

Hiya, I was wondering if you happen to know of somewhere on Wikipedia that lays it out why this isn't appropriate. (Did a search but came up a blank.) I'm considering adding a hidden edit comment to the Lohan article, but it would be handy if there was somewhere I could just link to. Siawase (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I remember asking this question a couple of years ago when I was newer and having a great deal of trouble getting any kind of "rule"-oriented answer. I have a vague recollection that I found something I could point to, but if I did, I can't find it now. Then, after a while, I realized it was fairly standard, at least for experienced editors, to remove pre-production films from tables, so I just forgot about it and automatically do it. I see people cite to WP:CRYSTAL, but that, of course, doesn't specifically address filmographies, so it's a much more generalized and fluid concept and ultimately a judgment call. Some even cite to WP:NFF,even though it's a notability guideline, for the notion that if you can't have a film article about a film that isn't in production, you can't have an entry in a film table, either. Not altogether satisfying as someone may always point out that notability doesn't affect content, just creation.

I keep thinking that if I search hard enough, I'll find something, but the closest I came was a discussion I was involved in with no good answer from WP:FILM.

Sorry. If you do find anything, please let me know; I, of course, will do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's about exactly where I got stuck when I searched too, heh. In addition to the arguments you bring up, one other thing I've seen mentioned before is that filmographies etc are similar to categories and infoboxes, no room for ambiguity or caveats. So the info that go in them should be solid and not up in the air. Problem is, all of this is a tad too long to cram into a brief hidden comment. ;) I'll hold off for a bit and see if it calms down, and then if necessary maybe add just a short note with reference to WP:CRYSTAL and the talk page. If I recall, there was discussion about this a few years ago when Lohan was in and out of projects all the time. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)First I need to say that I would have no idea where to locate the conversation about this subject either. What I do remember is that the outcome of it was that there was a general consensus that films in pre-production and even those that were in full production could be mentioned in the body of the article with proper sourcing. They weren't to be placed in the filmography until a confirmed release date had been set. The logic was that films in pre-production can get stuck in turnaround and even cancelled. This never got placed in the filmproject MoS and I don't think that it has ever been enforced with any consistency. I don't know if this helps and, of course, I might be misremembering things but I thought I would add to your conversation just in case. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah MarnetteD, thanks for mentioning that. I think I remember too, that used to be the convention a while back. There is one movie in the Lohan filmography that's been bounced around for two years now without a release date, so drawing the line at having a set date would make a lot of sense. Seems like something that would probably be hard to find consensus for in practice. People are really eager to add things. Siawase (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the release date rationale to be much harder to uphold, so I just go with whether filming has begun. I look at IMDb, and if I see that they say filming has begun, I generally just let it stand. Sometimes, I actually see if IMDb has any news reports that support it. If IMDb doesn't say it's filming, if we have an article, I look to see if the article says filming began AND has a source. If none of those things supports the notion that it's filming, I revert it. I'm not about to dig deeper to find sources for it. And, Siawase, it's absolutely true - people just love to add stuff, and not just in the actor articles. Thanks for chiming in MarnetteD - talk page stalkers are a great asset.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC typos

Thanks for fixing those. I have been editing from an iPad and between the virtual keyboard and the fact that the spellchecker seems to go on and off at random I have been making absurd numbers of typos lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I see another editor fixed another typo I missed. The important part is what a clear job you did with the substance. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Please check this edit; What is the unknown IP doing over there by removing both the reference and information? It should be a reaction to me or others, but it doesn't require him remove the referenced information. I believe you should protect the article. Anyway, I'm fed up with such bigot people. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

First, why would I want to read a 113-page article, particularly without a page number in the ref? Second, I know nothing about the subject (this has been pointed out at ANI). Third, even without the ANI report, which represented a conflict for you to propose protection, there was no basis for semi-protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read a few paragraphs on talk page of Sumerian language, you'll see me. This man is removing Ural-Altaic from the article though it's one of the suggested language families for Sumerian. It was my last edit in the article, so I can't do the third one. I hope you protect the article. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is like the case of Samuel Kramer.. Brtiannica rejects the Ural-Altaic connection with Sumerian yet it is brought in the same league. Anyhow I am happy at least Samuel Kramer was removed (he was misquoted as I showed). I am just sensitive against these fringe theories. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you check the recent report by Barayev? He keeps adding websites which are not academic and also check his tone on the talkpage as well as other talkpages. He also has consistently called other users edits as "vandalism" . Thanks --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

The second Greczia's block for edit-warring expired, he went right back to the same page to make yet another revert, as if the block didn't teach him anything. [13] This is getting really tiring now for everyone involved. As you see on ANI, the neutral admins and editors who are familiar with this topical area, all agree that this is nationalist disruption being waged on these pages. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look

at the bottom of my talk page - discussion about the editor you reverted and Number of the Beast. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I saw the editor's post on your talk page, which then led me to the Walid Shoebat article (what a mess that is) and my reversion. I have now seen your response to the editor's post on your talk page. I figured you could take care of the article that brought the editor to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Larry Klayman dispute

Hi Bbb23, I posted this at the Incident Board, and wanted to make sure you saw this....

Hello, I'm one of the parties involved. The user BigDog2012 has been posting irrelevant, personal info about the person at issue, Larry Klayman, for quite some time, and has made the Wiki page more a magazine tabloid than a source of credible information. It's clear this user has a bone to pick. The user's edit history reveals he created the account specifically to target Klayman. There's also the fact the user removed negative facts about Tom Fitton, a former associate and (now) adversary of Klayman, and added some glowing language of his/her own - making it appear the user some connection with Fitton. Escp99 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck detail

Read from the middle of page 4: [14]--Aichikawa (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of get it, but it's too weird, too much opinion (of Buck), and isn't particularly helpful to the reader. I'm going to remove it. If you believe it belongs, please start a topic on the article Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you hadn't removed it Bbb23, I would have for exactly the same reasons. Veriss (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. We don't have to say "for propagandistic purposes" but it's interesting and there is so little about this couple and I disagree that it's off topic. See the talk page.--Aichikawa (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do?

So what exactly am I supposed to do with the fact that Liam FitzGilbert has removed and distorted sourced information from the Heinrich Heine article as I have explained? I've spent hours and hours working on it trying to get it properly referenced. Somebody comes along and changes the content for no valid reason and gives no valid references. He removes cited facts, as far as I can tell because he just doesn't like them. Yet that's the version that is now hosted by Wikipedia. Paul Marston (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to work with him and other editors to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS on the article's content. If you are unable to do so, then there are other forms of dispute reoslution you can try. The one thing you canNOT do is battle in the article. It may be frustrating, but it's the only way to properly improve the article. Remember, you don't own the article, and others' views on what is appropriate may differ from yours. You just have to work together the best you can.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've followed all Wikipedia's content policies. My edits were referenced. His were not and falsely represented a source which he has not read. I pointed this out on my first edit to the talk page [15]. This is what Wikipedia Verifiability says: "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." All I care about is that the article should say what reliable sources say. This is encyclopaedic.

Please put me in touch with a sysop or a noticeboard that will deal with violations of verifiability. Paul Marston (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content dispute or whether Liam or you is correct, or it's something in between. That said, if you believe Liam is "making things up", try posting at WP:NORN. I'd alert Liam and anyone else to your post by pointing to it on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When you make edits to Wikipedia pages it says, "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." If Wikipedia doesn't have an efficient system of dealing with users adding unverifiable information or removing facts they simply don't like then it has major credibility problems. If no one in authority is going to do anything - unless as part of an arbitrary numbers game - then why bother? Paul Marston (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to get used to the way things are done here. There are many policies and guidelines, and just as many interpretations of those policies and guidelines. One of the more important aspects of Wikipedia is to work collaboratively with other editors and not insist that you're right. Liam may be just as convinced as you are that he's right. The 3RR rule is not "arbitrary". Its objective is to prevent disruption. To have editors battling over content by repeated reversions is not conducive to a stable encylopedic environment. There are really only two ways to deal with editing at Wikipedia. Either work within the system or stay away from anything controversial. Wikipedia needs good editors, so I hope you can adapt.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not insisting that I am right. I'm insisting that an article on Heinrich Heine should reflect what Professor Jeffrey L. Sammons, the leading expert on Heine (and the guy who wrote Heine's Britannica entry), says. If a Wikipedia article has references on it then it should contain what those references say. I've already quoted Sammons' exact words on the talk page [16]. See the mention of French occupation there? Yet Liam FitzGilbert removes that for no reason even though he retains the reference. NB: I do not have strong personal opinions one way or another about the French occupation of German states in the 1790s and early 19th century, or about the pros and cons of Napoleon. The only thing I care about is that an article on Heine should accurately reflect expert opinion of their effects on Heine and his attitude towards them. In other words, I am following encyclopaedic rules. Show me where Liam FitzGilbert has done this. Paul Marston (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Paul, I've done all I can or am willing to do at this point. I've suggested several courses of action open to you. It's your choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So anyone can come along and add anything they like to Wikipedia so long as it doesn't upset "consensus" or 3RR? No wonder Wikipedia has got such a bad reputation. I was a third of the way through referencing a poor-quality article on the history of Norway. If this is the attitude of sysops round here I don't think I'll bother doing the rest. Your loss, Wikipedia. Paul Marston (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion

Hey BBb23, I am wondering if you can close this discussion. It has a clear consensus to keep it as it isn't doing any harm. Obtund^Talk 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Obtund, I'm going to pass. Since I've become an admin, one thing I haven't yet done is close an AfD, and I'm not really keen on my first being a template closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Hi! Would you mind adding yourself to WP: DRVOLUNTEERS? Thanks, Electric Catfish 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

Hi, Electric Catfish, at the moment, I don't feel I have the time to volunteer at WP:DRN, and it doesn't seem appropriate to add myself just because of my comments about the Buck dispute - which is still going nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ace Young

Hi, Bbb23. I hope it's alright to contact you here, to keep this all under the same admin, who would have familiarity with the issue. I was wondering if I might ask you to reconsider the Aug. 18 page-protection decline for Ace Young. The multiple-IP vandal who claims to be Young is back again, as 69.231.197.148, making the same uncited, WP:PUFFERY, apparent WP:COI edits here,

• Under the IP 69.231.192.20, he'd made the same edits here on Aug. 18.

• Under the IP 69.231.201.77, an SPA, he made the same edits here and here, and here, among other edits, all on Aug. 17.

Nothing I or any other editor says can disuade him, despite our speaking to him here and at Talk:Ace Young. He keeps coming back. I hope you'll reconsider given his latest action and the pattern it represents. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tenebrae, I know it's frustrating, but I still don't see enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. However, you're more than welcome to make another request at RFPP. If you do, I won't resolve it - you might find an admin who's more receptive to your arguments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User you warned recently

Hi, you warned User:Wanderer602 not too long ago for edit warring. [17]

Well today he went back to reverting in the same article. [18] [19] [20] He keeps reverting the sourced result.

I think he started to do this because I added OR tags in a related article.[21]. In that article he also has 3 reverts today (of tags that are not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved). [22][23][24]

So he did not take your advice of staying on the talk page. I don't know what to do. He did not violate 3RR like last time. I don't want to match him revert for revert. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

He has made 3 reverts in less than 2 hours. I have issued him a 3RR warning. I agree that you should not continue warring with him (you have made 2 reverts). Please go back to the Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but there is no point in discussing it with him. This has been discussed to death on the talk page, and he just does not want to accept what the sources say about the result. Maybe dispute resolution can help...

However, I don't understand why he should be allowed to blank the sourced result (without anyone restoring it), especially after he was warned before. -YMB29 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem was that the warning wasn't very recent (3 weeks ago, I think). Try dispute resolution if you think the Talk page is not working. Remember to focus on the content issues, not on conduct - it's not only more appropriate, it's generally more effective.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Couple of notes. User YMB29 refused to continue discussion on the topic on the talk page. Feel free to read the talk page. Also the WP:3 requested by YMB29 to resolve the edit issue recommended that result entry should be left empty. YMB29 refuses to accept this - in other words refuses to accept the offered dispute resolution. I have no trouble using talk pages to handle the matter but i had understood that since the topic had not been touched for 3 weeks at all on the talk page that there were no longer objections for making the edit. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you what you need to do to keep the discussion going. I can't keep on responding to your manipulations of sources and third opinions over and over. Your reverting and manipulations are highly disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In other words you reserve the right to reject third party mediation requested by you when you do not like the result it achieved? That is most interesting revelation. WP:3 explicitly stated that they preferred to see no result. It simply did not matter what sources you were or were not providing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well sources don't matter for you, that I know... I did not reject the opinions of others; you have to stop making that accusation. -YMB29 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you call it then when you rejected the recommendations given by WP:3? They explicitly stated that they preferred to see no result. Your opinion is opposite to that, how exactly is that not rejecting their recommendations? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your manipulations won't help you. No result was slightly more preferred than a general victory, so I did not put just victory. I changed the result to strategic victory, which is directly supported by sources and there were no objections to it. Anyway, this is not the place to argue... -YMB29 (talk)

You are yet again claiming that i manipulate something? You have done so repeatedly. Never with any kind of proof behind your slander. WP:3 had an option which provided an alternative where the strategic part was separated. This is roughly analogous to what you are suggesting. It was not what the WP:3 preferred. They explicitly preferred to have no result at all. Changing a word or adding a adjective does not change anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't make sense.

The fact that you refuse to go to DR[25] speaks for itself... -YMB29 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not refusal to go to DR. Only note that there is no need since the matter has already been reviewed by outside editors who recommended leaving the entry result blank. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are just continuing to manipulate facts... You do not want to go to DR because you will be proven wrong again. -YMB29 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gee, all this while I was off-wiki. Just in case you feel like continuing this discussion here, don't. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the block? I did not break 3RR, like the other user. I reported him to you yesterday since you warned him when he broke 3RR before, but you did not take any action. He did not want to go to dispute resolution when I suggested it. What is the use of it if he won't go by what is suggested there... -YMB29 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I blocked you for edit-warring. That's all the two of you seem to be doing other than bickering about the content here and elsewhere. Second, you did in fact violate 3RR. If you don't get that, then reread the policy. You reverted, as that term is defined in the policy, more than three times in a 24-hour period. I count 5 from August 21 18:58 (UTC) to August 22 12:39.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding tags or text is not a revert.

The other user did break 3RR, so I don't understand why I am as guilty, especially since you warned him for breaking it before. -YMB29 (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The safest way to think of a "revert" in terms of the 3RR policy is any change to the article, no matter what it is. The actual definition is: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." The phrase "undoing other editors" is subject to different interpretations, and some admins, including me, may cut editors some slack when the change is innocuous. However, in this particular context, the edit-warring was clear, regardless of how you interpret the definition of revert. Your first edit in the sequence was an undo at 18:58. Your second edit was an undo at 19:14. Your third edit was a partial undo at 4:30. Your fourth edit was the addition of tags to the disputed material at 12:15. Your last and fifth edit was a change to the disputed material at at 12:39. I count ALL of those as reverts in terms of the policy. In this context, even the tags was part of the back-and-forth dispute between you and Wanderer. But even if you don't count the tags edit as a revert, you exceeded three. Your contention that "adding text" does not constitute a revert is wrong under any reasonable interpretation of the policy. I don't want to get into some sort of a contest as to who is guiltier than the other. You were both warring, and you were both blocked. Please move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you would have taken action, which a previous warning given by you would imply, there would be less problems.

I did not know that admins can interpret the 3RR as they want, but going strictly by the definition of a revert I did not make more than three. -YMB29 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Jacksonville Jaguars

Hey Bbb, could you take another look at 81.132.17.176 (talk · contribs · count)? Immediately after returning from their block they've resumed edit warring. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cuchullain, it looks to me that immediately after the block expired the IP edited the article again. You then reverted at 13:04 (UTC). Right after that, you warned the IP for edit-warring at 13:05. The IP has not made any edits since the reversion and the warning, their last edit being earlier at 12:58. I'm not inclined to block them at this point. However, I put Jacksonville on my watchlist to see what, if anything, the IP does when they resume editing. If they revert again, I'll reconsider.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that. FWIW the warning I left was really just to be nice - they're clearly aware already of the edit warring policy as they'd just come off a block for edit warring at that same article. But yes, nothing needs to be done right now as they haven't edited since. Thanks again,--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

GAR for Mila Kunis

Just alerting you, as per Community reassessment guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment ("please notify major contributing editors" to a given article) that a Good Article Reassessment has begun for Mila Kunis, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Bbb23. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K.

Can you please inform me of the reasoning for why you rejected my report on the user Dr.K.? The user continues to revert pages to protect another user who is arguing about editors rather than the topic. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages, as are the continuous reverts. Cinque stelle (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a high threshold for removing other editors' comments from talk pages. It's true that ideally discussions should focus on content, not on editors, but except in the cases of egregious personal attacks, comments should not be removed. The comments you removed were not of that order. I understand that it may be frustrating - and wrong - for editors to comment disparagingly about new or IP accounts, but that doesn't make the comments removable. Best thing for you to do is take the high road, ignore the comments, and just focus on the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So we should only "refactor" a page if there are personal attacks? But the guidelines consistently state that editing may occur to keep the discussion on the topic (rather than the editors themselves). Maybe this is a gray area, but it's like I read one advice on one page and another elsewhere. I'm confused. Cinque stelle (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline you cited (WP:TPYES) is not a mandate to removing others' comments. As it states, it is just considered "good practice". For refactoring, you would look to WP:TPNO. But be careful because you need to be really sure of your interpretation and application of these kinds of guidelines before removing comments from a Talk page. If I were you, I would just stay clear of it until you are very experienced and confident of what you're doing. It's a touchy part of Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all even if I were wrong, and that's a big IF, I did not break the 3RR rule since I only reverted three times. Second you were also edit-warring having reverted three times yourself and as such you should have been reported as well. Also despite your personal attacks against me that I was trying to protect another user and your highly personalised section title bearing my name, let me explain something to you: I am not trying to protect anyone. It would be extremely naive of me to be Athenean's apologist and I know better than that, let me assure you. It is the principle of the thing. Athenean's comments were legitimate because you are a single purpose account. We have tags for SPAs involved in controversial areas such as this, specifically to alert other users of such activities. I tagged your comments after you started the edit-warring and becoming disruptive by removing the legitimate concerns of another user. Athenean's comments were along the same lines as the tag. Yes, they were colourful but they were well within policy and that's why they should not be removed. Nothing personal, I assure you. I am just trying to minimise disruption as best I can. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Zero Dark Thirty

Whoops. Sorry about that. I don't know how that happened. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You hit the wrong button? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to restore the comment referred to in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi, Bbb23. Would you please take a look at this ANI discussion and voice your opinions on it? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to go off-wiki and won't be able to today. If it's still there tomorrow and I have time, I will look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the PP, much appreciated! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck, Totten and IPWAI

Hi, do you know what happened to the discussion about IPWAI being disruptive on the Administrators' noticeboard? It seems to have been resolved and taken off the board without any of us being notified. thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

When an ANI topic is inactive for 24 hours, it is automatically archived. Here is the archived discussion. There is no requirement to notify a user when a topic is archived or resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

COI Edits on Occidental Petroleum Page

Hi, I have some proposed edits on the talk page for the Occidental Petroleum article. They are all factual, just updating information with the latest figures. As discussed on the page, I have a WP:COI. Could you please look over the edits? Thanks.Namk48 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. Nobody Ent 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some people don't understand what closed means. I just had to revert again. Sigh. Thanks for the note.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help in blocking the IP user making legal threats on the Daniel P. Gordon page. - Guðsþegn (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for bringing to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk Edit History

Please refrain from removing my comments. Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments were inappropriate. Don't continue to snub your nose at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying User:Settdigger.

I thought I didn't see it at the top of the page, but I was mistaken. Thank you for notifying the user when I neglected to. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about to just block Settdigger - he was warned about the 3RR rule at 08:29 today, and continued with at least 2 more reverts after being explicitly notified of 3RR, so I'm not really buying the ignorance-of-the-law bit. On the other hand, he hasn't reverted in the last 8 hours or so, I guess. I don't want to step on your toes - as long as you're following up on the report, I'll leave it to you to adjudicate as you see fit. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell. Based on a broader look at Settdigger's edits, I opened up a topic at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy Roddick

Bbb23: Please, it would have taken all of a minute to check Google News to see if Roddick was really retiring (I was watching the press conference as I put in the info, and could easily have cited it as the source). You could then have tagged it for a citation, but deleting a breaking news event without checking on it first just doesn't make sense in the age of the Internet. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

First, it's important material and therefore needs sourcing more than innocuous material, and, second, why couldn't you take an extra few minutes to source it when you put it in? It may be "breaking news" for newspapers, but we are not a newspaper. What is the infernal rush? Shifting the burden onto me - or any other editor who removes the material - makes little sense. Don't get me wrong - I know that there are other editors who would agree with you. As an aside, why was it in so many places?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about the last thing - I put it in 2012 and the lede. I deleted one other place where it was inappropriate.

You're right that I should have sourced it, just plain forgot to, totally my bad, but on the other hand you really should have checked it or just tagged it. Deleting it without checking first .. well, it's just a little too WP:BURO for my taste. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

Hi, Bbb23. I have started doing some major work at The Cabin in the Woods. I intend to get it to GA status and I have started a discussion at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA Push and notified the Film WikiProject about this. I have already notified Darkwarriorblake and Betty Logan about this as well. As such, if you have the time, would you be willing to collaborate with me on the article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, Sjones, but the truth is I don't have the time. Good luck, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Buck

Deleting properly sourced information is not permitted on the wikipedia. It is not up to us to judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.53.5 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Little green rosetta

This user has an {{unblock}} request up that I think is worthy of looking at. I'd be inclined to unblock, but as the blocking admin, that's up to you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the request and wanted another admin to look at it, but I agree it was a sincere, worthy appeal. I've unblocked the editor. Thanks for the notification and your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I also should have stated in my unblock request that I might have picked a better venue then EW. Since this dispute really centered around the question of was there a consensus, where would have been the best place to ask for an opinion on the consensus? This wasn't an RfC. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Russian-speaking Ukraine

Hi, they're vandalising the page again. Is there anything that can be done? -Garik 11 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've semi-protected the article again, this time for 2 weeks. I've also restored the article to before the disruptive edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing unblock requests

Hi Bbb23. Regarding Settdigger, just a gentle reminder that unblock requests should be handled by an independent uninvolved admin, rather than by the admin who placed the initial block ("Since the purpose of the unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked.") I think you made the right call in declining the unblock request (I'd certainly have declined it myself), but formally speaking another admin should handle it. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and thanks for the reminder. I've never acted on an appeal of my own block before, but this one was so absurd I let it cloud my judgment. If you think I should, I'm happy to undo the decline. It's a little embarrassing, but it doesn't bother me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, he put up another unblock request right away anyway, so I don't think it matters much. I'd just let it go (and I agree with you about the absurdity of the appeal - I don't think this was in any way a gray area). MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, and I posted a comment owning up to my error; it's only right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI help

Hi, I rather not use Wikipedia so I am just using this ip.. Can you please run this check on my behalf as you have been dealing with this issue? It is clear as daylight that some new throw-away accounts are being used to push the same POV? See here: [26]. Thanks --96.255.251.165 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that User:Dougweller is going to address your concerns later ([27]).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He says that he might address it tomorrow..If not, can you file it on my behalf? I can't do it with an ip. But some of the users like Kurdale and Barayev are 100% throw-away accounts that were used on the same article and created at the same time. Plus the said user has already had a history of sock-puppeterry in English Wikipedia and has been banned for it in German Wikipedia. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Doug Weller ran the SPI [28]. How long does it take for a response? Also given some of these throw-away accounts were used to edit war with long-time established users, I hope appropriate measures are taken if they are indeed socks. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, how long do these things usually take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, I'm not really following your sock concerns, even though you believe I "have been dealing with this issue". I guess Doug is as he opened up this report on your behalf (took me a while just find it). If that's the report you're asking about, it's awaiting a decision by an SPI clerk to run or not run a checkuser. As for your specific question as to how long it will take, sock puppet investigations are complicated and, in my experience, don't always move quickly - so, you'll just have to be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

unconstructive changes

Please stop these immediately, I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings 92.90.21.11 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to the Joan Juliet Buck article are disruptive, as are your comments at other user's talk pages. If you continue in this vein, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Frédéric Bourdin

How is it, that you are calling a well known newspaper "The telegraph" quote "unsource inappropriate material", you are not allowed to make this article (Frédéric Bourdin http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bourdin&action=history) the way you want to, The telegraph is perfectly allowed and appropriate as a source. If you do have a source that's relevant contradict this source then let us know, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talk • contribs)

Who is "us", and who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe your answer quote: "(cur | prev) 18:40, 1 September 2012‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,376 bytes) (-199)‎ . . (Undid revision 510312717 by Francparler (talk) - this article is not a soapbox for Bourdin's accusations against others) (undo)" This article like any other must bear facts by all reliable sources and from different side, what Bourdin say about his past, that you think is unreliable or not is relevant, it's been quiet sometime that I have observed your disruptive biased intervention on different articles and we ask you to stop now. Wikipedia is not your toy and while it's sure that it's not anyone soapbox for accusation, quoting the subject with a reliable source like "The telegraph" is perfectly allowed and even recommended. Now again please stop your disruptive actions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who are you ? Bbb23, an editor, who am I, Francparler an editor, who are we, editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Curt Lewis

How can I write about this person without a speedy delivery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webpopular (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean speedy delete. First, you cannot copy text from somewhere else, as you did here. That's copyright infringement and will not be permitted at Wikipedia; even close paraphrasing is not permissible. Second, you need to find reliable sources supporting Lewis's notability. Mind you, you might get past the speedy delete stage, even without sources, but the article would no doubt be deleted relatively quickly thereafter through other deletion processes at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, Barayev was found to be a sock[29] with Gabriel Stijena ..Note how these users tagged up in different articles. Unfortunately, nothing was done to Gabriel Stijena who is likely Greczia also. Also the Aryan212 with just two edits [30] was not checked for throw-away although he edit warred on the same topics. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

He is back pushing fringe claims in Khatun and Nart Saga. His sources do not hold up or are fringe. Anyhow, please take a look here: [31]. He usually brings sources that do not hold and do not have the material in them. Or are fringe theories not supported by mainstream. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Hi, thanks for reviewing my request for unprotection, could you flesh out your response, eg link the process by which the protection was obtained, and link the process by which the WP:SOCK was determined. Thanks 188.28.233.87 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the admin who protected the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced of their motives, and as you are the Admin that upheld their decision, I would expect you to have equal incite, except with an unambiguous untainted view 188.28.151.90 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to convince you of your motives. Yours appear clear. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of documented sources

Please stop doing this, you are clearly doing as everyone said a whitewash of her. I noticed that several others have warned you about your writings. It is not helpful to the Wikipedia. Nor is threatening people with banning good for the Wikipedia either. Manbumper (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave this editor a 3RR warning, as I believe that the IP is the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And took the article to BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I've commented at some length (hopefully people will read it - always dangerous to be too long). Collect's changes were relatively minor. As I stated at BLPN, the most disturbing language is in the Asma so-called controversy section.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Something to do with Settdigger

Believe it or not, Settdigger is asking for a "request for review of [your conduct]". I've given him a reply justifying your block but I was just wondering if you had any sort of recall page for future reference, as I couldn't find any, even though in this case it's highly unlikely. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, my bad, though I was talking about one with personal criteria, like how some admins have a special page for that stuff (can't think of any off the top of my head) A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Appears you made one mistake and owned up to your error. I don't see a problem. All of us make mistakes. Since another admin declined his subsequent unblock request, everything appears in order again. By the way -- both of you -- don't miss this edit, by which you can see that several people have already addressed this issue but Settdigger removed the evidence. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't miss that edit, but as misleading as it was, he has the right to remove anything he wishes on his talk page except the block notice itself while it's still current.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He's also saying that he feels "that Wikipedia does not welcome newcomers, and has become an exclusive club rather than a transparent and welcoming community" and I was implicitly telling him that it was his edits that got him in the position he's in now. He was also blaming MastCell. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because MastCell issued the initial block. You are, of course, free to comment on his talk page, but my advice, FWIW, would be to leave it alone. If he wants to submit another unblock request, he can do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Aw, he's removed it now. Now let's see what happens next. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 04:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanking

I just noticed this edit having re-blocked the user. WP:BLANKING does not prohibit the removal of block notices - it does prohibit the removal of declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a discussion about this point, either at AN or ANI, I forget which, and different admins had different views on this sentence and particularly the part I bolded: "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." I think I brought it up because I found the phrase at the end confusing. On its face, the phrase prohibits the removal of a current block notice as an "active sanction", but at the same time it's odd in light of the first phrase ("declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block"). One admin - sorry, can't remember who - appeared to agree that a user is not permitted to remove an active block notice but said he'd never revert a user who did. Frankly, I think we should clarify the language to eliminate this confusion. Perhaps I'll bring it up on the talk page of of WP:UP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm on record somewhere saying that users shouldn't be allowed to remove active block notices. I agree with you it should be that way. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I interpret it. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, yet another discussion - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck

Thanks for, uh, most of your edits on this. Could you tell us why you cut that section on subjects that Buck covered for Vogue? She had a long career there and I think some counterbalance to Asma al-Assad is valuable, no? Maybe it was an error but please talk on the talk pages before you do that edit again--Aichikawa (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Assuming you're talking about the paragraph that begins with Cotillard, I don't believe I've ever taken that out (at least not in the article's recent history). Manbumper took it out here, and you restored it here. I made no edits to the article in between.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

You need to recuse yourself from administrative action over the Black Swan discussion given that you are an interested party. Awien (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read my latest comment on the talk page, you'll see that I did just that. However, that doesn't prevent me from acting as an editor, including warning you, expressing my opinion as to your conduct, and, if I believe it appropriate, reporting you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What may I add?

I am helping Amazon Eve actress/model maintain her page. She has asked me to add the following as places she has appeared. Assuming I can find a link to the article or the video would I be able to add any of these?

Thank you, as always Greenwayfriend (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Greenwayfriend

• Red Van Man--Pilot Tall Client Lady ABC/Disney
• The Regular Guys Show on 100.5 FM Featured Celebrity Guest Atlanta GA
• Maximum Level Fuji TV Celebrity Featured Story Japan
• RTL TV Celebrity Featured Story Germany
• Access Hollywood Celebrity Featured Story USA
• KCAL 9 Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Las Vegas Weekly Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Inside Edition Celebrity Featured Story USA
• Samantha Woo Featured Fox
• Little Heroes Featured Cinemotion 21
• RTL Television Celebrity Featured Story Germany
• A Current Affair Celebrity Featured Story Sydney Australia
• Sun Rise Celebiryt Featured Story Sydeny Australia
• Today Show Celebrity Featured Story Sydney Australia
• NTD News Celebrity Featured Story World Wide Sindication New York NY
• LXNY (NBC Local Network) Celebirty Featured Story New York NY
• ProSiebenSat 1 Celebrity Featured Story Munich Germany
• iTV Day Break Celebrity Featured Story London UK
• RJP Media/RTL Television Celebrity Guest Jensen Show Hilversum Holland (Netherlands)
• Rob TV Celebrity Featured Story Tienen Belgium
• Lo Show Dei Record Canale 5 Celebrity Interview Milan Italy
• Funny or Die (internet) Featured Guest Los Angeles CA
• KTLA Morning Show Featured Celebrity Guest Los Angeles CA
• E! Talk Soup Featured Clip (KTLA gag) Los Angeles CA
• LXNY (NBC Local Network) Celebrity Featured Story New York, NY
• Penn Speaks Radio/TV (Local Network) Featured Celebrity Guest Jim Thorpe PA
• The Regular Guys Show on 100.5 FM Featured Celebrity Guest Atlanta GA
• TV Show; High Intensity Fuji Television Featured Celebrity Guest Tokyo Japan

• Hi, Greenwayfriend, generally, you can add things she's done that are sufficiently noteworthy to be reported in a reliable secondary source. Forr example, if you could find a Today Show link that she appeared on the Today Show in Sydney, that would NOT be sufficient. Instead, you'd have to find a secondary source (not Eve and not the Today Show) commenting on her appearance. My guess is that most of the appearances you've listed above would not be sufficiently noteworthy to add to the article, but I'd have to see the precise material (to give it some context in terms of her career or life) and the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympiacos CFP

Yep, I'll take a look sometime today for you - cheers, GiantSnowman 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've worked out what happened - originally, the Olympiacos CFP article referred to the parent sport club, with Olympiacos F.C. being the association football division of the sport club. Sometime in July (I can't be bothered to check every diff) a C&P move was done, and both articles became near-identical. I have reverted and will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 09:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding, I'm happy to turn it over to you. If you remember to let me know when it's all cleaned up, please do. Thanks. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer

Hi. In what way is Bomer's birthplace unclear? Is the Yahoo! bio that is cited in the Early life section not adequate? Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was going by the internal comment in the infobox and moving too quickly for my own good. I've self-reverted. Thanks for pointing it out to me. My fault.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It happens to all of us. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Assassination" sock

That IP seems to be at least a meat puppet if not a sock of blocked user:Settdigger. I don't have the time and nerve to file a report so I'm just saying although you're probably quite aware of that possibility.TMCk (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it occurred to me. I consulted with another admin who's more knowledgeable about these things than I am ([32]).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see or will see in a moment, I've commented there.TMCk (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

please help/Anne Block

Can you please help me? What do I need to do to work on a version of the Anne Block article that meets Wikipedia criteria? I feel that the version submitted by Deception Passer under the title "Anne Block" was closer to a finished product and thoroughly sourced. Where can I make a case for the article? It appears that the latest discussion I requested took place and was closed before I could comment. Further, I feel that the article was unfarily labeled an "attack" article without any discussion, and the label has stuck. I realize that this is usually the case, but please consider the fact that in some cases, the evidence available does not paint a balanced picture. Consider the Seattle Times front page piece I used as a primary source. The Times is the biggest paper in the NW region, and the investigative team has won pulitzers in each of the last three years. To me, that's a pretty solid source. If the actions taken by the subject reflect on her in a negative light, that doesnt mean that I've written an attack piece. It could just mean that the acts described ten to make one think of the subject in a negative light. I would ask any editor to read the Seattle Times piece and to fish around a little bit. I think it would become apparent that there is more to this than just an "attack".

I am frustrated because there was no constructive criticism regarding the sourcing or the work. It took a long time to compile 30 sources and to write inline citations. It seems like the discussion should be about the merit instead of just deleting the page outright after Block whitewashes it. The sourcing was good. Inline citations, references from the best journalistic sources in the region, a survey of different outlets showing that Ms. Block had been covered by pretty much every form of media in the region, etc.

I want to follow the process and I feel I have located solid secondary sources regarding an subject that meets all criteria for notability. However I feel that the controversy surrounding Block's actions has prevented any discussion about the specific merits of the article. I requested a review of the deletion and the conversation was apparently opened and closed before I even had a chance to contribute. Now all of the discussions say "please do not modify" and I can't find any of my previous work. Much of the dialogue wasn't even about the article it was about Ms. Block's apparent legal threat. The original page had been up for several days, and every day I was working to edit it, improve it, and add more sources as per the direction of editors. As soon as Ms. Block started whitewashing the page, all of a sudden it was deleted and there was never any discussion as to the merit of my sourcing or the grounds of the deletion. It doesn't seem right that as soon as Ms. Block starts whitewashing and threatening, the process is stopped. If anything, her actions only further backup the picture painted by the sources. She is litigious in nature. Almost all of the available sources talk about her confrontational legal actions, all of which have a great impact no local politics, state law, and the economies of the region in which block operates.

Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Anne_Block.2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAnne_K._Block Better version: "Anne Block" / user Deception Passer Seattle Times story on Anne Block: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017434837_goldbarreporter06m.html Sky Valley Chronicle Story on Block: http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/ L8incoub3rt (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's possible for you to create a neutral article about this person, even assuming such an article would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I note that you've already approached User:CharlieEchoTango and he hasn't yet responded (he hasn't edited Wikipedia since before your posts on his Talk page, so you'll have to be patient).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would you say that I am not capable of writing a neutral article? I realize its not a finished product, but ultimately the sourcing speaks for itself. Not everything in life is balanced. Almost all of the reporting on Block is about her litigous activities. That's why she's famous. Block's actions or the media coverage of her actions shouldn't, if properly sourced, reflect on the author of a encyclopedic entry. I can defend any individual citation or point, but generalizations are impossible to address in a meaningful way. I feel like editors are confusing the actions of the subject with the article. Block's actions are her own. If I simply cite secondary sources describing her actions, how can that be bad? Any judgement would be on her actions or the validity of the sources. I would much rather have a conversation about the validity of the sourcing in my article. I don't feel I was given that chance. If I can have the copy back, I would appreciate it very much. I have put alot of time into it. Thank you. Deception passer (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you and L8incoub3rt the same person?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No. But my account got blocked anyway. No discussion, no reviewing of my talk page, just a total block. Weak. As I stated on my talkpage and in several other dialogues with editors, I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing. I was very open about this, just as I have been open and forthright in stating that my article should be viewed upon the merits of the sourcing. I feel like you avoided my question regarding your subjective and general comment regarding your feelings about my abilities and decided to block me instead. I want my account reinstated please. I think you acted hastily. If you had read my posts or my talkpage you wouldve seen that I had stated that I was sharing a computer and working on the same topic as my roommate. Our goals are the same - to produce an article that is sourced and neutral, or to produce no article at all. Unfortunately it seems like whitewashing, fake threats and petty blocks are the most effective currency around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.42.244 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"I submitted a revision of my roommate's article after Block began whitewashing". <== So this isn't your work, then.

Have you read about meatpuppets?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Block legal threats

Hello. I am still confused as to how Anne Block's legal threats have resulted in the page deletions (my version was "Anne Block") and the block on future articles. It seems like this is rewarding her for threatening legal action and punishing the authors who attempted to research and write a difficult but relevant article. I am attempting to go through the correct procedures. Block simply whitewashed the articles and threatened me/wikipedia/anyone else. I don't think that this should prevent me the ability to work on an article. In fact, since this is what Block is famous for, it seems like it is even more important to write the article. This is a person with 20 open lawsuits against government and 11 pending recall attempts. This is a person who bankrupted her own town to the point that it is dis incorporating. She threatens litigation in every instance. It's why she is notable. Take a look at this, her latest threat related to wikipedia.

I know I can write a neutral, sourced article. I just need the opportunity and for someone to work with me on it. Her threats are empty - Inline citations from strong secondary sources protect everyone from liability. Which is probably why Block constantly deletes sourcing. Please take a look at the article the Seattle Times wrote on Block. I need an editor to take a little time to understand the situation and to give me some guidance. I also need my article text and sourcing back - it was all deleted.

Can you help me get the text from this article back? I will no post again until I have buy-off from an Admin. If I can't achieve that, then I'll leave it alone. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Block&action=edit&redlink=1

Deception passer (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for User:Panyd's response to your post.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Deception passer (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Luke Evans

since the sources I cited for Luke Evans were credible and even though i don't remotely agree with your analysis that my contributions read like a commentary, wouldn't it be better to revise my edits rather than delete them altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleaguer (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, that was two months ago. I'll try to look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've revisited the two sentences you added. The first about the list of celebrities, given the issues associated with Evans's sexual identity, is jarring and non-noteworthy. As a list, it has no analysis, nothing except a picture and a caption. The second piece refers to Wikipedia itself and has no place in the article. It reads like a blog comment. If you have an issue with my assessment of either piece, you are welcome to bring it up on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

IRC cloak request.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Frédéric Bourdin

Just out of interest, the material which was removed as unsourced by (admittedly a block evading individual with an extreme COI) a user, appeared to be supported by the link in the edit summary. I am good at missing things in these circumstances but could you illuminate it for me? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't quite figure out whether the phrase about the film was supported by The Telegraph, but certainly the part about his grandfather was in the newspaper article. However, it was troublesome because it was based on a quote from Bourdin himself. In my view, that's a violation of WP:BLPSPS, point #2 ("claims about third parties"). In other words, we would be effectively permitting Bourdin to say anything he likes about any other individual and then report it in our article, just because the quote was reported in an otherwise reliable source. Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty

Hi, Bbb23. You have protected this article before, and it may need protection again. After a couple days of relative quiet, several editors have now resumed repeated reverts without engaging in productive discussion on the talk page. Could you please take a look? My recommendation is that you pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it down until the major concerns are properly expressed and resolved. (You are going to upset several editors regardless of which of the three recent versions gets protected; disclosure: I have edited the article recently.) I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to "address" the problem. Any ideas you have on this would be welcome as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've locked the article. I don't get to pick my "favorite" version, but in this case, as I explained on the talk page, policy dictated that I not accept the version at the time of the lock. I've left an explanation and advice on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't seriously recommend that you pick your "favorite" version, Bbb23, and I wouldn't do so. I am well aware that Admins are instructed to implement blocks on an article without regard to the current version. What I did recommend is that you —— pick your favorite "wrong version" and then lock it —— note the emphasization-quotes around the "wrong version" text. All I was saying was that whatever version gets protected, you are sure to be accused of picking the wrong version to lock - the implication by disgruntled editors being that you have "played favorites". I didn't recommend that you play favorites.

That being said, you were 100% justified in your concerns about certain wording being too close to wording from a source, and locking in that wording would most certainly have been problematic. Thank you for your prompt attention to the matter. I'll keep my fingers crossed that the major issues can be hammered out before the block expires. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Sometimes, much as I enjoy humor/mild levity, in serious situations it can be misconstrued. No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My humor/sarcasm can definitely be misconstrued, as I'm learning -- and I don't fault you for that; I need to work on clearer and more direct wording.

Two direct questions for you regarding (Reverted to revision 511199286 by Arthur Rubin: version prior to copyright infringement and potential BLP issues. (TW)):

1) If copyvio problems was the reason for rolling back to previous versions, why to Arthur Rubin's version, when AzureCitizen's version is more recent and also does not contain the copyvio text?

2) If Arthur Rubin's version was selected instead of AzureCitizen's because of "potential BLP issues", could you specify what those BLP issues inserted by AzureCitizen are? I honestly am not seeing them.

Your input on these, especially the "BLP" thing, would be greatly appreciated and would probably help to considerably advance the discussion about these issues on the article Talk page. A response on that page would suffice. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather not comment on your questions. I'd like to leave myself out of the content issues as much as possible so I can act administratively if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you "I told you so" ... ah, heck, yes I am. You locked down the article, and the discussion on the Talk page screeched to a halt. As I requested above: "I'd also like to see a stern admonition from you to the effect that everyone falling silent until the block expires is not an acceptable way to 'address' the problem." *crickets* Well, the article is unlocked now, and I've added some of the content back that was deleted with the last revert (note: I kept your edits intact). Will there be productive discussion, or just unexplained reverts as before? I'll reiterate my request that you do what you can to get editors engaged in discussions. As for my part, I'm going to somewhat throttle-back my edits on the article-side, and observe. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand your points. First, it's not my administrative role to force people to discuss on the talk page. I encouraged them to do so, but I'm not your spokesperson and don't have to word my advice the way you wanted me to. Second, there's been little discussion on the talk page since the lock by anyone, although, to your credit, you did try to frame the issues. Finally, what entitled you to add some of the content back without discussion? You just put it back the way you thought it should be. Thus far, no one appears to have objected to what you did, so there's no reason for me to consider it as another protracted dispute, but it appears to be inconsistent with your views on how these things should be played out. Finally, there has been a small tug-of-war between AzureCitizen and Belchfire, but at this point, just as with your edits, I don't see it rising to the level of requiring any administrative action. Throttling back your edits is good, but if you really want to help improve the article, try posting more to the talk page in an effort to reach a consensus on the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To your first point: I agree 100%, and thank you for the actions/encouragement you performed. Second and Third points: I cannot conduct a discussion in a vacuum. I explained my edits, and I asked the two contesting editors (North & Belch) to let me know what their concerns were. That was three days ago. Belchfire and North8000 both simply stopped discussing, and North did worse: refused to discuss because he felt his NPOV concerns should be obvious, and didn't need to be explained. Three days later, in the absense of further objection or even response, with my "efforts to reach a consensus on the content issues" left dangling in the wind, I added content -- as every editor is entitled to do. I'll be raising more discussion on the Talk page, as I intend to propose some content trimming. Haven't looked at the article, or the recent tug-of-war yet. My request that you "get editors engaged in discussions" was contingent on the revert-wars firing up again; I didn't make that clear. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of unblock condition

It appears that Scientom has violated the condition of their unblock as described here [33]

Please see the message I left on Scientom's talk page [34] asking them to self-revert. I will wait for a self-revert, and ask that you do so as well. I wanted to bring this to your attention instead of engaging in EW like behavior, however if they fail to self-revert I would hope you would make an inquiry. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry into the matter. I resisted my initial inclination to revert but raised the matter at Scientoms page and here first. I plan on restoring my edit if no response is forthcoming. This is a "heads up" courtesy notice for you. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you were wrong to revert Scientiom. You made the first reversion on September 7, and now you've reverted again. Just as I unblocked Scientiom early, I also unblocked you early. And in my unblock I said: "I'm unblocking you with the understanding that you will stick to the talk page of the article and leave the article alone." I don't see these reversions as appropriate for either of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain consensus was to remove the undue phrase. If someone else disagree's they are welcome to remove it and I'll let it be until the RfC closes.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your response misses the point in the same way that Scientiom's response does. It doesn't matter what you think the consensus was. You should not have reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I never agreed to not edit the article. But I will revert myself if you feel strongly about this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that you made no express promise. However, as I pointed out, my unblock was predicated on your leaving the article alone. And, honestly, I don't understand why either of you cares that much whether those two words are in the article or not while the discussion continues. It's such a lot of drama about so little. Perhaps that's hard to see when you're so involved in it, but if you try to step back for a moment ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith I self reverted and you can wait for Scientom to explain him/herself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Just want to notify you that i have responded to the discussion on this talk page. Kingroyos (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Brad Birkenfeld

Hi - this man just received a 103 million dollar award from the IRS - i'm horrible at writing wiki articles but i promise you people are going to be looking this guy up a lot very soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.97.216 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Bennett

Dear Bbb23 Teacross is again editing on my page, and their work has since been partially cleaned up, but I would still suggest that the additions remain not from a neutral point of view. Your additional help would be much appreciated. Regards, Natalie Natalieben (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the new material is not policy-compliant. I have removed it and warned Teacross.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On my watchlist. I'll make sure only RS get through.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A good start

Some people really hit the ground running with their very first edit already. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since then he's been furiously working on his user and talk pages, alhtough, curiously, he appears to be making them match. Do you know him? If not, how did you even stumble across him? For an admin, my user page isn't particularly interesting - part of my minimalist philosophy, or maybe just laziness/lack of interest. My ANI/ANEW topic continues. I guess there are no kind admins (heh), or perhaps, like your Milton analogy, more people think it's more constructive to highlight the Buck issues, no matter what the forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I look at Recent changes when I'm bored. No, don't know him, I don't think--but such proficiency is a bit of a red flag. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For clearing out AIV tonight! Electric Catfish 01:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A belated thanks, Electric Catfish. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Can you take a look at the ANI discussion I'm in. I'm involved with the articles, but we do have a revert issue with the one editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about User: Balzacdeverlain (with the many reverts) and his "friend", User: St. Romanesque. I read the topic. I noted that you issued final warnings to both users. Since that point, I've been watching them to see if either has made any edit since your warnings, and, thus far, neither has. (I'm not quite why why Niemti apparently thinks that Balzacdeverlain has.) Because of that, I was reluctant to block, although I was prepared to block if either defied your final warning. Perhaps I'm being too cautious. I think generally I'm more willing to block than you are, but I also am a bit of a stickler for procedure. I hope all that makes sense, but if you want to give me additional reasons for blocking, that would be helpful. I'm sure you know I would like to assist if at all possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Russian language in Ukraine

Hi, looks like the same anon who vandalised Russian-speaking Ukraine is now doing the same in Russian language in Ukraine, including the article's talk page. Can you please take a look? Thanks. --Garik 11 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I protected both the article and talk pages for one week. I was watching the first article; I've now put this second article on my watchlist (sigh). Feel free to let me know if there are other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking Tjo3ya

Hi BB,

Thank you for trying to be fair in considering the edit war issue. However, as much as I'm sure removing a block will just result in Tjo3ya putting his efforts into continuing his attacks on me, I want to point out that he didn't actually make his edit again AFTER I reported him and notified him of the report on his page. He had made his last revert immediately before I made the report. Since I knew that if I reverted again, regardless of what I put in the reason line for doing so that he would continuously reinstate the change, I just left it was with his changes intact. Neither of us actually touched that page again after that. It wasn't until the next morning that Cnilep took a look at the article on his own and reverted Tjo3ya change (the same one I'd been reverting) back to the previous version. It was at that point that Tjo3ya began his various threads calling for my head and only after this that he acknowledged / responded to the 3RR/Edit war noticeboard.

I don't like his actions on that article, and everything he's done since has been nothing short of offensive in every way, and if anything has accomplished his goal of convincing others that I am doing everything in my edits and discussions with negative intentions, but he didn't actually do anything to the article regarding that particular disputed change again once I'd opened the report. Because you cited that as your reason for blocking him, I wanted to make sure you had to correct information.

Thanks again, DrewDrew.ward (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very fair-minded of you to point this out, Drew, but I think you and I view "reverts" in different ways. I haven't examined all of the edits, but just because Tjo3ya wasn't reverting you doesn't mean that they didn't alter the article. Indeed, they made two significant changes today, one at 19:47 and another consecutive change at 20:07. Both are in the last few hours, well after the EW report, etc. They should have simply not touched the article for any reason. As for you personally, my advice is to calm down, step back, and don't ever let your frustrations cloud your better judgment. Argue on talk pages, not in articles, and try not to argue with other editors. Just stick to content. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a very peculiar definition of editwarring that is unlikely to be possible for editors to predict. It is not editwarring to edit after someone files an editwar report unless you are undoing other peoples edits.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered this myself. You characterize his edit of the article as an instance of IDHT, though I'm not sure if Tjo had seen in the discussion about the edit war a clear request to stay away from editing the article at all (I certainly didn't). Looking at the edits in question, they seemed mostly concerned with presentation and copyediting and didn't touch on the specific issue of contention. As I said at WP:AN3, I don't think you made a bad call, though I am somewhat concerned that Tjo might view the block as capricious if the rationale doesn't seem fair. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's interesting that the only flak I'm getting for the block is from everyone but the blocked editor, whose block has expired I might add. Edit-warring decisions are often discretionary. Thus, there may frequently be disagreement among admins, expressed or unexpressed, about whether a block is justified. This particular report was unusual in many ways, and I had options. The easiest option would have been to block both editors as they both violated 3RR. But I read the rather contentious discussion between Tjo3ya and Drew, and I was unhappy with Tjo3ya's attitude. For example, they said: "The recent edit war between him and me at the article on do-support may have been necessary to draw attention to the greater problem." Effectively, that's saying I can disrupt Wikipedia to make a content point (which is exactly what Aeusoes correctly noted at ANEW - btw, I thought Aeusoes made the most cogent comments of anyone in that discussion).

Susbequent to that comment, Tjo3ya continued to argue content rather than policy. And I thought their suggestion that both editors be blocked "for a couple of weeks" also evinced a bad attitude. It's like "I don't mind if you block me as long as my opponent goes down with me." As for the two edits that both Aeusoes and maunus think are "okay", I disagree. I realize that many admins will make exceptions for innocuous edits during an edit war, but changing the article, even in areas outside the dispute, still constitute reverts. And these edits were not tiny edits - they added 1,286 characters to the article. Moreover, it seemed to me to be a continuation of Tjo3ya's "independent" atittude. I know if I personally had been involved in such a dispute, I would NOT have touched the article for any reason until the dispute was resolved. Perhaps other admins would have come to a different decision, but I don't think mine was outside the realm of reasonability, and, frankly, I usually own up to mistakes when I make them (which I do).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

User:Bhim chauhan creates a trouble so check it immediately ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it got out of hand after the decline.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

AIV

Hi Bbb23, I see that you are currently online. Can you please help out with the AIV backlog? Thanks, Electric Catfish 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

I'm about to go off-wiki (time for dinner and relaxation). Besides, there are only a couple of IPs on the list (not much of a backlog), and, for me at least, they're not easy because they're sports-related (I did look at both, started swimming in sports statistics, and gave up). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Puig Antich

Thanks for protect the article. Do you have the page in your Watchlist?. So you can see the comments. By the moment, i added some references. --Ravave (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist. Thanks for adding more to the discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP disruption

Three reverts in a row, here. Could you please do something about that? (This time please do not block me on the side, Dear Admin... :-) Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP has made three reverts at Nicosia, after which they were warned of edit-warring. I don't see any reverts after the warning. The IP has also made two reverts at Nicosia (disambiguation), the last of which was before the edit-warring warning on the other article. You could bring this to WP:ANEW arguing edit-warring over multiple articles (no 3RR breach on either), but I might suggest waiting to see if the IP does anything further, which would, of course, then be post-warning and would strengthen your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Authoritative and perfunctory

I think your revert of Dr. Blofeld here was unnecessarily harsh and only serves to bolster your authority for miniscule gain. It is clear that the editors are in a good faith dispute and the thread should remain active to allow interested parties to add the full weight of their position. If you insist the discussion takes place at another location, you should move the discussion to that better place. Allowing it to continue there would not have been improper whereas requiring it be moved is a bit of a stretch, IMO. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That administrative forum is for reporting and discussing edit-warring. If either editor had comments about that issue, I would have permitted them to continue within reason. However, they both had a couple of parting shots after my decision. I then asked them to stop but left in their edits. Dr. B.'s subsequent edit would have just led to another by Andy, etc. There was no justification for continuing except to clutter up the board.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position and tentatively agree. I simply feel the matter is not resolved and within the parting shots remain vestiges of worthwhile matter. Both of these editors are capable of respecting consensus which was itself stifled by your manner. Frankly I would like to have weighed in myself and seen a consensus emerge; as it relates to the dispute. Instead all we can glean is that another noticeboard is stationed better to host the discussion. That is why I would rather have seen it moved. Notwithstanding these, you are esteemed in my sight and I remain an honored colleague. Cheers - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent ruling

Part of your ruling concerning [[35]] seems to have disappeared. Its not clear whether something important has been lost. Could you please clarify? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Which "part" has "disappeared"? And what do you think has been "lost"? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "Although I understand Jokkmokks' comment about self-reversion being seen as "hypocritical", I agree with They think it's all over that it would have still been seen as a constructive, even if belated, gesture to self-revert."

It seems to me that sentences are not completed. You understand my comment but agree with [whom?]. I also can make no sense of this: "They think it is all over". Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Aaah. User:They think it's all over is to whom I was referring. If you look above in the topic, you'll see that the user made a comment about self-reversion. Just so it's clear, though, I've altered my decline. Does it make sense to you now?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK all's clear now. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Bbb23. Nice to see you at my talkpage regardless of the circumstances. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - turned out to be a sock, which is what I assumed but don't have the tools to prove.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning it was obvious it was a sock. The CU block was exceptionally fast. It was great work on the part of everyone. All the best Bbb23 and thanks again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from user space to article space

Bbb, what's the rules for redirects such as this, User:UsefulWikipedia/sandbox? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel like the Wikipedia world has been turned on its head - your asking me a question about WP rules. I was off-wiki when you asked. I've commented at my usual excessive length at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No no, there are areas that I simply don't know all the ins and outs of, and you know lots of stuff real good. I had a feeling (must have seen it come up before) that this particular redirect was OK if useless, and that was confirmed by Beeblebrox. I read your comment there and I agree. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Asma al-Assad

I don't need nor expect an apology from "A". I seriously considered not responding to her attack at all and waited for well over 24 hours but I didn't want to lose respect because those comments demanded some sort of response. I readily admit that I did not take that editor much more seriously then the writer, Ms. Buck, that she seems to champion. I erred by trying to be humorous with a sarcastic remark a month ago that apparently still bugs the editor. I think A over-reacted but I feel I should assume some responsibility for A feeling offended.

I will remove any comments about personal attacks when A removes her personal attacks as I would prefer a clean talk page on that article that we've all worked so hard on for the past 18 months.

I really feel deep inside that too much discussion about Ms. Buck is a distraction from Mrs. Assad, so I have tried to minimize any discussion that does not directly affect the subject of our article.

In the spirit of openness and inclusion, I have however, initiated a discussion about Ms. Buck. I suspect that I may regret doing so as it may be mostly celebutant stuff but I want to get the issue out of the way and let other editors feel they have an opportunity to contribute. BTW, I never once thought of the name Veriss having any relation to Veritable, Very or anything else much like Thomas has nothing to do with "To Max". Cheers, Veritably Awkward. Veriss (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Veriss, I expect Aichikawa to behave better. Their comments directed at you are, unfortunately, a small part of the problem the editor has with collaboration. You could illuminate one issue for me, though: what "earlier sarcasm" did you mean? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Same thread, first response. I know better. [36] Veriss (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I had seen that, but it was so mild I discounted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

I have an edit request for Innocence of Muslims for a few days. Have you seen? I wait and wait, no-one responds. --Camoka5 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I answered your request (not done) as it was discussed in another section and rejected. There's no need to create what amounts to a duplicate request. Also, please do not edit Wikipedia without logging in. Apparently, you edited using 85.103.117.31.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieve the best version

Hello Bbb23, I would like to ask you an important question, please. Tell me what is the best version of this article: Version 1 or Version 2 ?

Version 1: article is not good and there are duplicate images and old images, there are not a lot of information.

Version 2: the contrary, a good article, and the latest images and more information and sources.

Please give me your opinion is this topic? --Best.Master (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Chace hasn't quite figured out that this generally doesn't work. I catch him at at several times a year. He doesn't quite seem to grasp that he has to log in as Chace Watson again and attempt to persuade someone to unblock him.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

KnowledgeisGood88

Bbb23- re: the editing wars on High Point University, you will notice that the user KnowledgeisGood88 continually moves the information in Businessweek to the top of the page under "Recent History." You can also see on my talk page that they left me the following message: Made some adjustments on September 18 to eliminate redundant items and moved some text so it would have context for readability.... etc. Obviously, this user has placed a great amount of trust in the Businessweek publication as they continually place it on the HPU wiki page and continually move it to the top so it's one of the first items read. Why, then, did they remove the following link, which I posted below their Businessweek spiel on the HPU wiki page and is a link to the official Businessweek publication stating that there were errors in the original article about High Point University Businessweek Corrections & Clarifications? How do I report this person? They obviously wish to place only harmful material on the High Point University page. These corrections are just as important, if not more so. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandwidth47 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You have a content dispute. It should be worked out on the article's talk page; yet, I see nothing on the talk page about the issues. That's the proper place to start. If it can't be worked out, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available to you. I would not continue battling in the article itself. Otherwise, you risk another even longer block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma Magic block

I sustained your block because IMO he had been edit warring, but I agreed with him about the edit you said justified the block. It may have been a revert, I couldn't tell, but editorially he's right: That sentence wasn't relevant to the image. It doesn't matter if it's sourced or not. Someone could add a whole bunch of reliably-sourced, verifiable information about horticulture to an article, and we'd have no problem deleting it if the article in question were about, say, a Linux distribution. As zealous as we have become about sourcing our information, a properly-formatted footnote to a reliable source does not make the text it supports bulletproof (In this case that text belonged inline near the image, if it wasn't already). Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel, I saw your comments in your decline. In my view, Acoma's last edit (to the image caption) constituted a revert based on the strict language of the policy. That said, I probably wouldn't have blocked if it hadn't been for the edit-warring history and the comments by TP, which occurred before the last change by Acoma. And even after all that, if Acoma had requested an unblock and acknowledged, even a little bit, his behavior in the article, I myself would have probably unblocked him. Instead, he wikilawyered the issue to death and ended up effectively (not directly) accusing both TP and me of being "ridiculous".

On a broader policy level, I think we should consider the fact that many editors who are reported at ANEW raise similar issues about (1) what "undoing" means in the defintion of a revert and (2) the changing of "other material", and (3) whether an addition counts as a change. The fact that these issues keep cropping up tends to support the notion that the policy may not be clear enough. I know that admins rightly want to retain some discretion in applying the policy, but there are ways to be clearer and still retain that discretion.

Finally, I didn't point this out to Acoma, but he quickly picked up on some of my comments about admin discretion and pounced on them. An admin can enforce a policy based on a strict interpretation of the policy as long as the interpretation is reasonable. An admin can also exercise discretion NOT to strictly enforce a policy as long as the non-enforcement is not out of bounds. Editors are, naturally, happy when they avoid a block because of leniency by an admin. However, they shouldn't complain if an admin blocks them based on strict enforcement. In other words, they can't hope for leniency.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of figured there might be a deeper history there (as my ultimate decision to decline probably reflected. If you had included links to earlier versions of the same edit I might have understood. We should probably also advise admins to be mindful of the fact that other admins may review unblock requests by the same people from whom they have declined them, and may not see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing was difficult from the get-go. What with TP's comments, my judgment call to block (which I didn't take lightly), and the extended post-block disussion with Acoma. One of the things (I think) that bothered Acoma was the issue of administrator discretion. I think a lot of editors believe that admins should act monolithically. The truth is that disagreement between admins does not necessarily mean that one admin is right and the other is wrong. Both may have reasonable bases for their views, and both of their views may be within policy. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here. As a newer admin, I pay a great deal of attention to other more experienced admins' views on administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A7

Why did you delete the page Kirill Popov ??

Give me the reason please ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.220.174 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reason given in the deletion was "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance". This means that no real credible claim that the person was notable existed in the article. Taking a look at the deleted article myself, I can see why. He was a photographer and artist. He went to college. He moved to Canada. These are not unusual nor pass the criteria WP:GNG for inclusion. I'm happy for him/you/whoever, but that isn't enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• There was another article created a day earlier by User:Gamer2010999, David Popov, apparently a relative of Kirill, also with no indication of importance from Wikipedia's perspective that was speedily deleted by a different admin for the same reason I deleted Kirill. Gamer2010999 created both articles. Both Gamer and your IP address contested the speedy deletion of Kirill on the talk page. I assume that you are one person. If you choose to remain on Wikipedia, you should log as Gamer before you contribute to Wikipedia. Abusing multiple accounts can lead to blocks of the registered account and any IP adddresses used by that account.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved issue

User Scientom has returned from a wiki-break. They have yet to self-revert as you have requested. Would you please attempt to re-engage the editor whose page state at their wiki-break was [37], and since has been recently blanked with no explanation?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I noted what Scientiom did on their talk page. At the same time, I also noted that they have made no edits to California Proposition 8, the article at issue, nor for that matter to any other article. Their promise to respond and subsequent blanking does not show good faith on their part, but I'm disinclined to take any action against them until they do something substantive that effectively violates their unblock promise. If it makes you feel any better, your willingness to revert and reversion were clear indications to me of good faith on your part. Feel free to notify me in the future if you believe Scientiom is editing inappropriately (obviously, I can't watch all the articles they might edit).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does make me feel better. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 89.100.207.51

This IP has a long history of what numerous editors deem to be vandalism and/or edit-warring, which the IP invariably disputes as personal attacks, unfounded, etc. They have a habit of deleting long-standing content as "OR," no matter how well-sourced, and similarly declaring invalid any additional cites other editors come up with to refute the IP. At times they seem more intrerested in deleting content and keeping it deleted (e.g. on Methamphetamine they tried to delete all mention of "Srawberry Quik meth" on the grounds that it was an "urban myth," including the link to Strawberry Quik meth myth which actually documents the case). As noted a number of times, the the IP is hardly ever prepared to discuss disputes on Talk pages, and when they do, their first resort is often to immediately escalate to RfCs or other administrative measures, rather than actually debate the issue/s in question. I've been loathe to tackle them myself since a very nasty run-in with them at List of long course swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland, but we've probably long past the stage where we can expect their behaviour to improve any time soon. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Attack section"

Could you please justify why you state that my section on Talk:South China Sea is an "attack section" against another user? What part of my section, which was related to the article and contained justified arguments based on Wikipedia policy, attacked a user? Otherwise, I can only suspect that you are displaying favoritism towards a certain editor. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

See User:De728631's comment at ANEW. You're lucky I didn't sanction you for the attack. Try stepping back a moment and think about it. A user has a perfect right to remove warnings from their talk page for whatever reason. They get to control their talk page with some very limited exceptions. When another user takes those warnings and posts them on an article talk page, you undermine the user's rights and effectively attack the user in a more public forum. The fact that those warnings may have been related to the article is irrelevant. An article talk page is for discussing article content, not user conduct. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the time and date of each post before digging the hole deeper. This has nothing to do with "big bad evil me reposting the content on that talk page, after that user removed it from his talk page". That section was there long before the editor decided to clear his talk page, because per WP:DR, you're supposed to resolve the dispute on the article talk page (something that, in the end, the editor in question refused to do). Apart from the section title (which could have been renamed, which is what a reasonable person would do when mediating the situation), there was nothing that could be remotely seen as targeting someone. What I have suggested that user not to do also applies to everyone who edits that article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said that he did in fact remove the notices from his talk page - that's largely irrelevant. Your method of communicating your concerns on the article talk page was wholly inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, what was inappropriate? Point it out, stop being so vague, otherwise other people are completely oblivious as to what you are trying to say!

Quote: "Please stop adding links to disambiguation pages within the See Also section. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you shouldn't do this without justification." <-- This applies to all users. If anyone, you, me, User:Jimbo Wales, or anyone else decides to add silly links to See Also sections, it should be pointed out that it shouldn't be done. In fact, for those of us who have been here for long enough, we should be trouted for doing something like that.

Quote: "Wikipedia is neutral in its point of view, and we explain things subjectively, and not objectively." <-- This applies to all users. It was originally directed towards Fabyan, however this example can also apply to all past, present and future events for this article.

Quote: "If you claim that "Dagat Timog Tsina" was never ever ever used, then how do you explain these 13,000 google hits?" <-- This is the big one. Why on earth was this blindly deleted? A reasonable mediator would at least request for me to reword "If you claim that" to "If editors claim that", as opposed to a blanket deletion.

Yes, many of the things within that section were problematic, but like I said, a reasonable mediator would have done better things other than a simple deletion, a "sweep under the carpet". You could have asked me to change it. You could have changed it yourself. The title of the section could have been changed, and all personal pronouns could have been replaced to make the statements more general, for all users. You decided to inflame the situation more by making an edit that essentially makes a certain party of this dispute very happy, to the point that I can almost predict with utmost certainly that in two or three weeks time, there will be another episode of bread and circuses at either WP:ANI, WP:ANEW or some other theatrical stage, because this editor is now inclined to think (per the new section below on this very page) that it's now open season for them and they can do whatever they please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right though, do they Bbb23? Whatever the rights and wrongs of Benlisquare's actions, what Fabyan17 did was still a blatant violation of WP:TPO and WP:3RR. It seems as though there are double standards in this case. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

7Mike5000

Hi. Regarding this, is he still able to email me via the link on the side of my talk page? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony, as far as I know, yes, as I didn't disable e-mail access. See the section "Setting block options" just under WP:INDEF.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for all the fairness

Thanks for being fair and unbias administrator. Especially, for weighing all sides regardless of race, experience, technical-know-how and affiliations. God bless you as you continue to promote equality and fairness to all wikipedia users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan, I made a determination based on the merits of that particular report. Please don't assume that means your other conduct at Wikipedia is necessarily acceptable. I'm not passing judgment, but I do note that there are editors who are unhappy with your contributions. Remember that Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines that apply to all editors, and you should be careful about your edits to ensure compliance with those rules. Perhaps most important, pay attention to what other editors tell you and discuss issues they have with your edits. Collaboration is an important concept at Wikipedia. You can't always do what you think is "right" if there is a consensus that you are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, upto now, Fabyan17 is still constantly changing the globally common name South China Sea to "West Philippine Sea" in articles - diff. His motive is clearly a nationalistic one. He is seriously disrupting the Wikipedia Project and must be stopped. STSC (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

STSC, based on the one diff you've shown, it's odd on its face to link to a disambig page, but the disambig page itself has had a controversial history, including editors who have been involved in the Fabyan/South China Sea/I don't know what else controversies. There's no way I'm going to act unilaterally in such a dispute. If you believe that Fabyan is being disruptive to the point that sanctions are required, you should open a topic at WP:ANI again. As you well know, the previous discussion gained very little traction before it was automatically archived. Indeed, I believe the last person who commented was you, and your comment was almost the same as your comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your time. I shall seek remedies for this problem elsewhere. STSC (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Heeelp!

Hello. Adding some sourced info into the Cyprus article I made a mess of the references. The refs 43 and 44. The first one must be in Spanish and the latter in English. Could you please help? Thanks... --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was off-Wiki and just returned. In the interim, there've been edits to the article, so I wasn't sure what to do. Refs 43 and 44 don't make sense, I don't think. Anyway, the only ref I "fixed" was the current 44 (Cyprus a Historical Overview). If there's something else you still need, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. If you can only change the ref numbers (without changing the places of the references in the article body) it will be perfect. --E4024 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. Which ref numbers do you want to change - and to what? And why? (I'm not even saying it can be done ...) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The references are in their correct places in the article. It is only an aesthetic issue: 44 before 43. Please only change, if it is possible, 44 to 43 and 43 to 44; but only change the numbers, not the ref sources themselves, because they are in the correct position. Or simply forget it... --E4024 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to do that. I also don't see why such a swap would be aesthetically superior. Notwithstanding our aesthetical disagreement ( :-) ), you might ask your question at the WP:Help desk. There are some very knowledgeable technical people who watch that forum. Failing that, you could also try the Pump. Let me know if you find anything out.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fix please

Because of this complaint, the AN3 page has now been tagged with the 24 Hours of Le Mans race cars category. I am not sure how to fix this. Ankh.Morpork 14:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/EW Decline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Bbb23

You declined my AN/EW notice on Arthur Rubin, writing "This is not the proper forum for requesting review of an administrator's actions."

Would you be so kind as to tell me where one would report disruptive editing by an admin, acting in the capacity of an editor? I have searched the help files, and other than admin recall (way too extreme), I can find nothing relevant. Many thanks – MrX 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:RFCC? Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RFCC (leading to RFC/U) is one possibility, but be sure to pay attention to the instructions about admins on that page. Also, there are other limitations as well to an RFC/U (e.g., certification). Another possibility is WP:AN or WP:ANI, depending on whether you view this as an "incident" or a broader review. Although in a sense you have discussed the problem you have with Arthur at ANEW, if you haven't done so already (I didn't look), you might want to discuss your issues on Arthur's talk page before escalating the issue. It would be better received at AN or ANI if you did so. Just to be clear, I'm not expressing any view of the merits of your complaint. My decline was procedural.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23. Getting this matter to ANI is a reasonable thing to do. But in my opinion AN3 is a perfectly good venue for the review of edits by admins if they are not using any of their admin powers or authority. This particular case is a bit tricky (because of WP:SYN and some indirect issues of WP:BLP) so ANI could be a better choice in this one case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, as you should know, I always appreciate your views on these things. Usually, although not always, when someone reports an editor to ANEW, the objective is to block the editor. How do we do that if the editor is an admin? Would it be better to let the discussion play out at ANEW and then if the deciding admin finds that the reported admin would normally be violated, make such a determination but not issue a block? It gets a bit dicey in my view. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to handle this for the next time this happens (it's happened before). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins can be blocked like anyone else for edit warring. Their status does not affect the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, dropped in after seeing the thread on AN/I. I concur with EdJohnston; there is no technical barrier to blocking any Wikipedia user account, regardless of what flags (including the sysop bit) they might have. Admins can (and sometimes are) blocked for edit warring. It happens seldom because most know better, but if it does occur then WP:ANEW is a legitimate venue to handle it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ed, I think you'll find some disagreement among admins on that one. I remember at least one discussion on the issue of whether an admin may be blocked by another admin, and related to that, I believe I had an extended discussion with User:Franamax (I think - I'd have to dredge it up) who firmly felt it was not possible/made no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

At some point I may try to dig back into the past, or raise the issue at WP:AN, but I don't feel comfortable going out on a limb in light of your (Ed's and Ten's) comments. Unless I have some clear consensus for my view, in the future I won't decline EW reports based on that rationale.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope the editor mentioned at AN3 won't mind this observation, but if you click on 'block log' you'll notice a few: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My, my, all those admins doing what I said they couldn't do. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If an admin can be blocked, can they unblock themselves.Blethering Scot 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a quick desysop at Arbcom. Sædon^talk 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is quick at Arbcom. The issue is whether an admin can be sanctioned by another admin or whether they can only be sanctioned (with some very narrow limitations) by Arbcom. This is, I believe, the issue that came up once before. Don't forget that just because an admin is blocked by another admin, unless that block is challenged on the basis that the blocking admin had no "right" to do that, then it'll just proceed without fuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins (and I speak as one myself, having had the bit since 2005) enjoy no special privileges or protections from enforcement. Indeed, when they commit a blockworthy violation of policy, then can expect not only to be blocked, but also to face a loud (and sometimes-but-often-not justified) chorus of cries for their desysopping. Admins are not plucked out of Wikipedia's normal dispute resolution process for trial by private ecclesiastical courts. I'm a little bit concerned to see a new admin who is unaware of this, and more than a little concerned that you're actually arguing when you're being reminded of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've promised not to treat an admin in that fashion again based on your and Ed's comments. I would think that should be sufficient to allay your concerns. That doesn't mean that I can't continue to discuss the issue in good faith. Apparently, you believe it's obvious; I don't. I might also mention that even Ed felt that in this case the matter would be better handled at ANI. Yet, an IP reverted me at ANEW and closed the discussion at ANI. I don't intend to touch either action by the IP but only because it might be perceived to be done in bad faith, but I would have been far happier had you, Ed, or another admin done it. Finally, just so it's clear, I did not decline the ANEW report because I was cutting Arthur any kind of special slack because he was an admin. As you can see from the top of this extended discussion, I advised the reporter on where they could go to complain about Arthur's conduct. I still haven't investigated the report itself and still have no opinion on its merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't take your point. Why would you prefer an admin had closed the discussion? Why is your reason for not "touching" my actions concern over the perception, rather than appropriateness, of doing so? IPs are people too, y'know. Sometimes, we're even better informed than admins at policy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that new editors often hold a host of misconceptions about the rights and role of admins within the Wikipedia community, and that the limits to admin authority, powers, and rights often can be non-obvious to new Wikipedians. I remain disappointed that someone with as much experience as you have, and who recently received the admin bit, wouldn't be familiar with those limits, however. Getting piqued because a logged-out editor knew this stuff better than you did doesn't help. Accept that you made an error, be glad that it was quickly fixed, and move on.

When you say 'discuss the issue in good faith', do you mean that you think admins should only be answerable to ArbCom, or that you wish to argue further that admins are only answerable to ArbCom? I'm not sure what's left to discuss.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They are admin boards by definition. In general, admins should close discussions, or experienced users who have demonstrated they understand the policy implications and can be trusted. It is my opinion that IPs should never close discussions. There is no accountability or independent way to determine a track record of experience. IPs enjoy the same rights to edit most articles and participate in most discussions, but shouldn't close discussions for the same reason they can't vote at RfA or participate in some other meta areas. Even semi-protection, by definition, demonstrates that IPs are given access to most, but not all opportunities to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an opinion you're certainly allowed to have, but there's no policy backing it up. Or, at least, there wasn't several years ago, which is the last time I tried hatting an ANI discussion. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't a bureaucracy and don't require a policy where common sense and previous consensus are sufficient. From my own experience, this perspective would hold up to a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, B³. An admin unblocking him/herself would likely be construed as a severe misuse of tools and Arbcom would probably handle it by motion as at that point as a case wouldn't really be necessary (unless there were some very extenuating circumstances). Most Arbcom cases aren't quick, but there are cut and dry cases like the recent EncyclopediaPetey desysop. In my experience, the length/complexity of an Arbcom case is proportional to the extent to which content is part of the dispute Sædon^talk 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to disagree with Ed and Bbb here, but admins should be dealt with in the same venue as any other editor for two reasons: 1. To insure they receive no special treatment. 2. To make sure that the public perception is that they are receiving no special treatment. If I had to block an admin, I might be inclined to go to WP:AN and ask for a review afterwards, but that is a review of ME, not the blocked editor. If we treat admins any differently than non-admins when it comes to simple issues, then it will be perceived as special treatment, and it will in fact BE special treatment by virtue of simply being different. On this point, I find myself very inflexible. If a patrolling/clerking admin feels that they can't be objective, that is fine as long as they recuse themselves from participating or making a final determination and defer to another who can, but the venue should be the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  (I don't think you're disagreeing with Ed at all. His point was that a situation involving BLP/OR/sourcing issues might need to be dealt with at a different noticeboard because of the substance of the particular dispute and a potentially greater complexity than would be well-handled by ANEW/AN3, not that it should be handled elsewhere because an admin was involved.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  Doh, corrected myself, thank you. There are likely cases that are the exception to the rule, as you point out, but that might be for any editor as well. For simple cases, like I said, I feel we are obligated to use the same venue and be blind to the bit when deciding cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ten that you (Dennis) weren't disagreeing with Ed conceptually, but at the risk of repeating myself, Ed did say, "ANI could be a better choice in this one case."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23, to clarify what I was saying (or trying to say anyway) in that convo on my page, there is no point in blocking an admin for misuse of tools, since blocking doesn't prevent tool usage and would thus be purely punitive. However for common or garden style abuse of editing privileges such as edit-warring, we all live in a flat space and get treated the same. If I'm reverting over and over, it is preventive to remove my ability to do so (and as mentioned, unblocking myself = desysopping) - but conversely it would be wrong to seek removal of my sysop bit for one isolated instance of warring. I'll have to reread that thread to recall what it was about. :) Franamax (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Franamax, I've reread our long discussion, too, and I believe you have it right about what we were talking about at the time. Obviously, if I had remembered that rather important aspect of it, I would not have declined the report at ANEW without at least further consultation with another admin. But, at the risk of continuing this discussion here, which has truly exhausted me, let's take a hypothetical. An admin edit-wars and is blocked for 24 hours as a result of an ANEW report. He edit-wars again and is blocked for 1 week as a result of an ANEW report. He edit-wars again and is indeffed (based on an ANEW report) because of his history. Putting aside the technical part (bits, etc.), how is an indef of an admin different from a desysop? Now, I realize that an indeffed admin can be unblocked, probably more easily than he can be resysopped (now there's a word), but it seems odd for all of that to be handled at ANEW and by single admins. Now, if the consensus (you, Ten, Ed, Dennis) is that this is all kosher, then I am willing to do what Ten asks, admit I was wrong about my decline and move on, but that, in a nutshell, is my outstanding dilemma. I hope that makes some sense and doesn't sound like me just being stubborn. Despite any indication to the contrary, I would really like to close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For what my opinion is worth, I think your conduct has been totally appropriate and don't have any problem at all with your desire and willingness to have metadiscussions regarding the role of an admin and how admin transgression should be handled. It's much better if this stuff is out in the open. I also agree completely with Dennis' comment below. Sædon^talk 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From someone who's personally feeling a bit hammered at the moment, I certainly appreciate your comment. And on a more objective note, everyone's opinion in this discussion has value.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think what would happen is that somewhere along the way, someone would point out that edit-warring repeatedly is inconsonant with the decorum and judgement expected of admins and that a RFC/desysopping request is coming down the path, and the admin in question would make a choice between reining it in and just not getting it. But the normal disciplinary process should be indifferent to sysop status and note that an indeffed sysop can still protect pages, block vandals, etc. - which would be sure to attract attention and cause epic lulz. :) So really, the two processes would move in parallel, block and desysop. BTW, willingness to explain yourself, ability to process new information and outside views, looking in retrospect and saying that maybe you were wrong - you have nothing to worry about IMO, good show. Franamax (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the detailed explanation and the kind words - much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Let's be honest, this isn't an issue that come up very often, as most admins don't get into this type of situation (RfA vetting does work for this), or if they are cusping on it, are smart enough to know to back down and apologize. Admins are human, too. I'm not going to rag on Bbb23 for making a call to send this one to ANI because it doesn't warrant it. I just want to make sure we all make it clear to the non-admins that we won't give special favor to admins. The perception is my biggest concern, as it's an editor retention thing, after all. I know that Bbb23 wouldn't try to give preferential treatment to an admin, or else I wouldn't have nom'ed him for admin to begin with. On the most important issue, equal treatment, we all agree and that is what matters most. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that admins should be held to the same standards as everyone else. In this instance, I never intended to hold Arthur to a lesser standard. It was all based on my understanding of the procedural/practical/technical aspects of one admin blocking another admin, nothing other than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• We all probably jumped to conclusions a bit too quickly here, and for whatever part I played, I'm sorry. Non-admins go nuts (understandably) when there is a perception of special treatment, and I know that wasn't your intention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone's only warning

Hi, has he arrived yet? --Garik 11 (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi Bbb23. As you are involved in editor retention, I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Bbb23. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)