This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 2 September 2014 (→BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement: {{unsigned}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:36, 2 September 2014 by Cailil (talk | contribs) (→BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement: {{unsigned}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|
Deletion
Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. Jayson3737373737 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC)
Citation tags
With reference to several discussions we had on 1RR and reverts - this is one - you said something about citation tags, but I cannot find that discussion anywhere. I wanted to check when moving a citation tag becomes a revert and whether affixing one counts as a revert. I know 24 hours must elapse between affixing a tag to text and removing the tag and text if not dealt with in that time, but am not sure of the revert rule here. Can you elucidate, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- 24 hours? Where does it say that? Adding one wouldn't normally be a revert (if it hadn't been removed recently), but removing one and or the text would probably be (although replacing one with a source obviously isn't). Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Doug.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant 24 hours as a rule of thumb. I think that was the conclusion reached on the Talk page before I removed a tag recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're talking at cross purposes here, so if Doug's answer didn't resolve the issue, perhaps you can rephrase your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am clear now about citation needed tags and reverts. I want to know how long a citation needed tag should be left in place before it can be removed along with the text it is appended to if a citation is not provided in that time. Twenty-four hours was mentioned on the Talk page as being reasonable. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're talking at cross purposes here, so if Doug's answer didn't resolve the issue, perhaps you can rephrase your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant 24 hours as a rule of thumb. I think that was the conclusion reached on the Talk page before I removed a tag recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Doug.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Glen Campbell
While I understand to a certain degree why you've removed the DUI arrest content at the Glen Campbell article, I'd like to know your complete rationale behind it in light of WP:CENSOR and how we don't work to whitewash articles. During interviews since his dementia diagnosis, Campbell's wife has said that she started to notice changes in Campbell's cognitive ability and behaviors that have now been attributed to his neurological deterioration due to the dementia. I think the DUI could be very briefly mentioned in this vein, but definitely agree the arrest doesn't deserve its own section. Thoughts? Comments? Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's very old and has nothing to do with his career. If it could be tied with reliable sources to his later dementia, that might be more noteworthy, but we can't work from WP:SYNTHESIS. And this has nothing to do with censorship and whitewashing. Those are inflammatory words that load any constructive dialog.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pudeo' 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above AN/I discussion has been closed as endorsing Bbb23's actions with near unanimous support from the uninvolved editors who commented. Monty845 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
User: Cwobeel
You cut this guy a break the other day and you did not block him from editing even though he was edit warring on two different articles. Now, he promised you he would not edit war, but he is at the Rick Perry article edit warring again. Can you enforce the limitations that you placed upon him when you cut him a break. MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in tag team edit warring again today, just one day later.--NK (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- (sigh) There is nothing going on right now at Rick Perry that requires admin attention. All is well. You arn't being held to any different standard than anyone else. Cwobeel is already under the same limitations per WP:EW and WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- NazariyKaminski, I know you can't respond here because you've been blocked for a month, but you can read it if you have a mind to. First, going back to editing the same article that provoked a one-week block right after expiration of that block is inherently dangerous. Second, you didn't go back with gnomish edits, but with reverts, essentially continuing to edit-war, regardless of whether you breached 3RR. Third, you were warned by another administrator (MastCell) about your behavior, but all you did was argue. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you argue with pretty much everyone. Finally, Cwobeel is not the problem at the Perry article. His unblock condition was limited to two articles, and they don't include the Rick Perry article. In any event, I don't see any evidence of him breaching 3RR. He reverted once in the last 24 hours. I endorse Dreadstar's block. You clearly have no insight into your disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1RR and 79.223.15.144 and Fossfaat
Hi Bbb23. Since you are an uninvolved admin, please take a look at this starting at 23:37, 27 August 2014. I may be wrong but each one of the two editors has unintentionally violated 1RR. Also, Fossfaat doesn't seem to understand the meaning of minor edit. Worldedixor (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Envivio
Hello this is Marcalsig. Why do you think I'm doing advertising? I'm just giving neutral info about a company. For your information, before making it, I looked to similar companies' (such a Elemental or Harmonic Inc.) wikipedia article to know what was the best way to do it. I just want to inform as you do with your articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcalsig (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your editing is disruptive. It is promotional. You remove maintenance templates without reason. You commit copyright infringement, which, in and of itself is a blockable offense. You said you would talk to the "Misplaced Pages managers" if editors continued to revert you. I'm not sure if you even know what that means, but to the extent anyone "manages" Misplaced Pages, it is a group of administators. I am one, and so is Drmies. I suggest you tread more carefully as you are very close to losing your editing privileges at Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1RR and Gazkthul
Hi Bbb23.
I thought I'd bring it to your attention the 2RR and by Gazkthul (talk) to take a quick look, if warranted. BTW, if, for any reason, you want me to cease and desist such heads up messages about perceivable 1RR, and I say perceivable because the ultimate decision obviously lies with you, please let me know. Worldedixor (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- One more edit for your consideration. Worldedixor (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1RR and Green Cardamom
Are reviewers exempt of 1RR restrictions in a 1RR article? If no, then I'll just bring to your attention the 1RR+ by Green Cardamom (talk) at starting at 13:34, 27 August 2014 and ending at 04:21, 28 August 2014 Green Cardamom, with probably more reverts coming, to take a quick look, if warranted. Worldedixor (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users." (emphasis added). And those reverts were not really. The material added by the IP remained in the article, I'm fine with it, there was no revert by the end of the series of edits which were party due to my confusion over what was being done. "Probably more reverts coming", huh? Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that you and a few other editors are trying so hard to include without much success. -- GreenC 14:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is not personal GreenC. When I see 1RR situation, I bring it to the attention of Bbb23, as an uninvolved admin, until it asks me not to do so. I have no edit conflict with you at all, quite the opposite. However, your saying "Does this have to do with our ongoing content dispute over linking to the James Foley video that you... are trying so hard to include" is false... I have NEVER included a video. I am making sure to state this for the record. The fact remains that other editors, including me, are adhering to the 1RR. Worldedixor (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- No one ever said you weren't adhering to 1RR. Personally I think you (anyone) will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts you directly. Also 1RR is easy to run afoul of without realizing it and much better handled with warnings on talk pages than telling admins unless it's a repeated infraction after warning. -- GreenC 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree in part and disagree in part. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- No one ever said you weren't adhering to 1RR. Personally I think you (anyone) will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts you directly. Also 1RR is easy to run afoul of without realizing it and much better handled with warnings on talk pages than telling admins unless it's a repeated infraction after warning. -- GreenC 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Worldedixor: I'm going to ask you not to post any more of these kinds of messages on my talk page. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but I feel like I'm becoming a clearing house for your complaints about other editors. If you believe an editor has violated WP:1RR, you may file a report at WP:AN3. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand, Bbb23. Got it. It was all in good faith, and now I agree with GreenC's statement: anyone will be better off minding their own business and not worry what other editors are doing unless it impacts them directly. Worldedixor (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Qizilbash123
Hi, Nader shah has afshars ancestry. and afshar people are mixed Turkmen and Azerbaijani people. but User:Qizilbash123 remove picture of Nader shah from this article. plz investigation--Samək 07:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- No need for investigation since he has no sources and he's playing with history. Tiny Afshar tribe exist today and they are linguistically assimilated into larger groups, and he's trying to imply that to 18th century. I left reply with explanation and analogies. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not police my talk page
I appreciate your intent, but I think policing other people's talk pages as you did in this edit is a mistake. Had User:I really need that username spammed a huge number of user pages some sort of mass reversion might have been appropriate. As best I can tell, I really need that username hit a small number of people manually in a sincere if mistaken effort. That sort of thing is probably best dealt with by the users with whom the talk pages are associated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Alan De Smet: I removed the comment because the editor was a sock puppet. I will continue to revert when I think it's appropriate, no matter what the page (I wasn't "policing" your talk page). If you wish to restore a reverted comment, barring some policy-based reason for not doing so, that's your privilege.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Gamma phi fraternity
Second one you beat me to. This means I can turn in. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- You should already have turned in. It's late there. Besides, at your age you need your rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
deletion of pms awareness page
I posted an article today, and it was deleted because it is "obviously" made up. I will agree that it is "obviously" made up, since it is something that was started 2 days ago amongst a group of friends, with the goal of spreading the idea. At what point is this subject no longer "obviously" made up and able to be posted in Misplaced Pages? Danius27 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- When the subject is reported with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
ok, thank you. I will have to wait, then! thanks for the prompt response. Danius27 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for pointing out my mis-click. I have fixed it Chillum 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Please explain
"We don't preventatively block editors". Well, there's this policy: If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also Bbb23, please see this, concerning this misuse of rollback. It's one thing if it were done by mistake or was something they realize is inappropriate, but defending their use of rollback to engage in edit-waring makes it clear that Winkelvi needs to have their rollback user right removed until they can demonstrate that they know when rollback should be used. Enforcing what they believe is a "consensus" in an ongoing discussion has never been a proper use of rollback. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- What is your problem, Aoidh? As I stated at the 3RR noticeboard (more than once, I might add), I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Misplaced Pages can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a twinkle rollback and here is one without an edit summary I created, while here is one you just created. Those examples include {TW} at the end, while your use of rollback did not. That is, however, ultimately irrelevant. If you believe that would be an appropriate use of rollback, as you said it was, then that shows a critical lack of understanding of what rollback is used for, and as such you should have the rollback user right removed until you can demonstrate otherwise. That is the problem, that you don't know what rollback should be used for, the issue isn't solely that you misused it, though that only adds to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that you don't believe that repeatedly undoing another editor's edits during an ongoing discussion is edit-warring, well that's a separate issue. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- What is your problem, Aoidh? As I stated at the 3RR noticeboard (more than once, I might add), I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Misplaced Pages can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, you mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard that because there was no edit summary that it was a rollback. I assume you are saying that based on that alone, you feel I used the rollback privilege rather than using Twinkle's version of rollback. I still don't believe that is what happened. If you choose "rollback (VANDAL)" (as opposed to or just ), it does not give you an opportunity to add an edit summary. While I still maintain I did not (intentionally) choose either the rollback privilege or vandal rollback from Twinkle, I will say that I may have done either. But not meaning to. I do NOT use Rollback (the privilege given and based on trust) hardly ever - unless it is obvious vandalism. I MAY have chosen Twinkle vandal rollback, but I don't think so. I probably used Twinkle rollback and forgot to leave an edit summary. I'm not an editor who would try to play games or use what's been entrusted to me in an inappropriate manner. That's just not who I am. I think that having rollback as long as I have and never having an issue or inappropriate use incident or complaint in the past would attest to that fact. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- To me, it doesn't matter how you do it; the idea is that when you revert an editor, not including an edit summary is the equivalent of rollback. I tend to agree with Aoidh that if you had used Twinkle, it would have shown up in the edit (mine do, I believe). The whole issue of Twinkle and rollback is a contentious one with no clear solution, at least last time I checked. But it's late and I don't feel like continuing this conversation. I'm not going to remove your rollback privilege. I have no comment on whether it should be removed, but I don't feel comfortable doing so because I don't get into permissions much and I don't like taking administrative action in an area unless I feel cofident that what I'm doing is correct. Now, could we all just go do something else? I'm sick of seeing the orange banner.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A possible sock puppet but not sure if I should do a report but...
Okay so this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Divyasharma2014 keeps on making articles for a company named Yoge Entertainment, which is then owned by Rohit Yoge (apparently who knows) which was made by https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SabriBrothers. Then finally they both contributed to https://en.wikipedia.org/Sabri_brothers_india which was made by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rohit2014
Yeah this is getting confusing. Wgolf (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Matter concerning Robin Williams' childrem
Hello Bbb23 I don't mean to bother you but still I would like to explain myself clearly to you. I'm commenting here because you said on ANI that no one should comment anymore. The editor Winklevi had removed the names of Robin's children from his article's infobox. I didn't know that you can't add the name of children in the infobox who are not noticeable. Also there was never any consensus on removing the name of children's name. However since Zelda Rae Williams is noticeable I added her name to it. He removed the name saying it had been already discussed and decided on the talk page. However whether or not her name should be included should depend on a consensus which never was. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I folllowed all of that. These sorts of things are usually straightforward, but the Williams issue apparently is a bit more complicated. In any event, as you know, we work from consensus, and sometimes it's hard to obtain one. Just don't let yourself get dragged into an article battle. Not worth it. BTW, the word is "notable," not "noticeable". Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANEW
Hi. Instead of removing my unresolved report, why don't you just take a look at it and get it sorted out? The whole point of the noticeboard is to stop edit warring and have it sorted out. Ignoring cases doesn't solve anything; in fact it just defeats the purpose of having the noticeboard in the first place. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- MrMoustacheMM, I would have replied substantively to this inquiry if you hadn't reverted again. As I said in my edit summary just a moment ago, if you revert again, you'll be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, reply now then, I'm listening. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- You make several assumptions. First, you assume your report was ignored. Administrators evaluate reports. They don't always rule, and they don't always even comment. That doesn't mean the report was ignored. Second, nothing compels an administrator to comment on a report or rule on a report just because it's filed. Third, not ruling on a report doesn't "defeat the purpose" of the noticeboard. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would guess that most reports are ruled on. Yours isn't the first, though, that wasn't ruled on; nor will it be the last. Finally, you do not get to insist on a report being ruled on. Nor is it permissible for you to restore an archived report just because it wasn't ruled on. As I said in my first edit summary reverting you, if you have something new to say, e.g., more edit warring since the report was archived, then create a new report. You can always link to the archived report for context.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will start off by apologising for reverting you and restoring my report. As you say, I made several assumptions that were incorrect (although, in my defence, I had no way of knowing they were incorrect).
- Perhaps these should be spelled out on ANEW, as it looked from my perspective that my report was simply ignored. A comment in the top area saying something like "Not all reports are commented on or resolved. If your report is archived without resolution, do not restore it; instead begin a new case if the issue continues." Had a comment like this existed, I wouldn't have restored the report in the first place, and I certainly wouldn't have reverted you.
- Anyway, in this case, should I go ahead and remove the other editor's edits again, and if they again revert, start a new case at ANEW? I want to do this correctly, so please help me with the next step. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think most people know about the reports, so adding language to the instructions seems unnecessary. We can't be explicit about everything. Gets too wordy. I'd have to look at the articles and the reverts to give you a definitive answer, but, generally, if a revert seems warranted and you are not edit warring by doing it, you should be okay. Just don't get sucked into a situation in which you are arugably as guilty as the user you're reporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would you mind taking a look? As you say, I don't want to become just as guilty as the user I'm reporting. Carnival Is Forever is the main article in question. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would spend your time on the talk page of the article discussing the dispute and hopefully obtaining a consensus rather than reverting. Neither of you has breached 3RR, but both of you have been going back and forth.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would you mind taking a look? As you say, I don't want to become just as guilty as the user I'm reporting. Carnival Is Forever is the main article in question. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think most people know about the reports, so adding language to the instructions seems unnecessary. We can't be explicit about everything. Gets too wordy. I'd have to look at the articles and the reverts to give you a definitive answer, but, generally, if a revert seems warranted and you are not edit warring by doing it, you should be okay. Just don't get sucked into a situation in which you are arugably as guilty as the user you're reporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- You make several assumptions. First, you assume your report was ignored. Administrators evaluate reports. They don't always rule, and they don't always even comment. That doesn't mean the report was ignored. Second, nothing compels an administrator to comment on a report or rule on a report just because it's filed. Third, not ruling on a report doesn't "defeat the purpose" of the noticeboard. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would guess that most reports are ruled on. Yours isn't the first, though, that wasn't ruled on; nor will it be the last. Finally, you do not get to insist on a report being ruled on. Nor is it permissible for you to restore an archived report just because it wasn't ruled on. As I said in my first edit summary reverting you, if you have something new to say, e.g., more edit warring since the report was archived, then create a new report. You can always link to the archived report for context.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, reply now then, I'm listening. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Soffredo
You blocked this user for two weeks in response to a 3RR complaint. He's had these issues before, and tends to keep reverting regardless of what's happening. He edits in contentious areas, and has been warned of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern European articles (such as the one he was edit warring on that led to his block). I personally don't think a 2-week block is going to alleviate the situation, having dealt with him before. I think that the best thing you could do is place him under 1RR via discretionary sanctions. This would give him WP:ROPE, but it might also teach him the virtues of talk page discussions. His past behaviour has not been alleviated by successive blocks, and so I feel that this might be a more worthwhile way to teach him what he should be doing. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to change the block at this point, but for the future (if I remember), could you please provide me with the link of his notification of the sanctions? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The notification can be found here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, not hard for you to remember, is it? :-) BTW, someone should have mentioned the DS on the report at AN3. Even you commented without doing so. I don't always think about sanctions, and it would be nice to be alerted to the fact that the article is subject to sanctions. That might have changed the outcome. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll do that in future. I didn't think it was necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- All clueless admins need as much help as they can get.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll do that in future. I didn't think it was necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, not hard for you to remember, is it? :-) BTW, someone should have mentioned the DS on the report at AN3. Even you commented without doing so. I don't always think about sanctions, and it would be nice to be alerted to the fact that the article is subject to sanctions. That might have changed the outcome. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The notification can be found here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Book suggestion
Bbb23, I noticed you have a wonderful picture of France on your user profile. I stumbled upon a fascinating book and a great study. It's called The Discovery of France by Graham Robb. And yes, it's a WP:RS! I really suggest it. It gave me an entirely new perception of the country. I think you'll enjoy it. Cheers! Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Étienne, thanks! I love the European countryside generally, but I particularly love the French countryside, not just because it's so beautiful but also because you can eat so well - and I speak the language, although not as well as I used to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The book is exactly about the countryside. How it has transformed these past centuries. How France was only considered 'France' in the Paris region. Everyone else had their own definition of Pays and nationhood. It was really an eye-opener for me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Aldota sockpuppet accounts
Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.
I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Tanbircdq, I see you have left this message on the talk pages of many administrators. I appreciate your reverting an IP who changes or removes the tag, but, at the same time, you shouldn't be adding tags. That is the function of an administrator or an SPI clerk. As for the IP problem, I tend to watchlist those accounts I block but not those accounts I tag. As I'm sure you know, Aldota has a lot of puppets, my watchlist is already over 5,000 pages, and I'm not going to add all of those accounts to it. Also, I don't see it as a major problem. The block of the account normally ties the account to the master, and, of course, the evidence is at the SPI itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Not contesting what you've said Bbb23, just curious why, if only administrators are to add sock tags, is "Tag" a click-on task that can be accessed and done by non-administrators from an SPI report? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, the reason is that administrators and clerks have a reason to tag (and what kind of tag) or not to tag, and it's not a good idea to usurp that function. Another editor, however, is welcome to come and ask the clerk or one of the administrators involved in the SPI about a particular tag or lack of tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that because non-admins can perform the function it would be seen as stepping on toes and not kosher to do so. Now I am hanging my head a bit since I've done it without asking more than once. Well, not really hanging my head, but I am certainly feeling a bit sheepish. I'll be sure to ask in the future. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- No worries and no need to feel "sheepish".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that because non-admins can perform the function it would be seen as stepping on toes and not kosher to do so. Now I am hanging my head a bit since I've done it without asking more than once. Well, not really hanging my head, but I am certainly feeling a bit sheepish. I'll be sure to ask in the future. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, the reason is that administrators and clerks have a reason to tag (and what kind of tag) or not to tag, and it's not a good idea to usurp that function. Another editor, however, is welcome to come and ask the clerk or one of the administrators involved in the SPI about a particular tag or lack of tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Not contesting what you've said Bbb23, just curious why, if only administrators are to add sock tags, is "Tag" a click-on task that can be accessed and done by non-administrators from an SPI report? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Walter_Görlitz
Hi,
I've noticed you have been involved in the recent block of the above user and there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI that might benefit from your input. Amortias (T)(C) 21:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Akshatra
You think this user is a sock puppet? User:EdJohnston just blocked him for edit warring.
I have opened SPI, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earlier, but things were a bit hectic for me. I see another clerk is handling it, so you're in good shape.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Men's Rights Movement protection level
Hi, just curious as to why you changed the protection level? The changes were discussed, and it was found that the reference provided didn't back up the claim (see Talk:Men's rights movement) and the 1R rule was not infringed. Zambelo; talk 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- There was no consensus. I've been following the discussion. A violation of 1RR would have resulted in a block of that user. However, I locked the page based on the edit warring by multiple parties, including you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't edit warring - I reverted once, and then the rest of the discussion occurred on the talk page. Zambelo; talk 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let's see. CSDarrow reverted first, followed by PearlSt82, followed by you, followed by Sonicyouth86, again by CSDarrow, and last by EvergreenFir. Although you reverted only once, you were part of the problem as far as I was concerned. You also pushed the envelope by adding tags, which technically were not reverts. No more disussion here. Do it over there. I'm tired and am going off-wiki shortly. I don't have time for this bickering.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it based on the number of total reverts rather than those by a single editor? If it was enforced, it would mean Zambelo, Sonicyouth86, CSDarrow and EvergreenFir would all have received blocks as they all reverted after the initial revert, which would stop the debate dead as more than half of its contributors would be blocked --94.175.85.144 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're wrong. The edit warring revert policy applies by editor. There are, of course, guidelines that address how reverts should be handled by editors after a "first revert" - and editors often argue about their application - but those aren't policy and have little to do with rules like 1RR and 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see, wouldn't that mean that, if three editors support the version of an article, but two do not, the three would always win in the case of an edit war, or does that change things? How does that stand with WP:DEM? Sorry if I'm bothering you --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be about winning or losing, although it certainly feels that way sometimes. It's supposed to be driven by reasonable consensus, and as you note with DEM, that's not a pure vote-counting exercise. If five editors are edit-warring, regardless of how many want a particular version, it's likely that the article will be locked because of the disruption. Even if it's not - say, for example, no one brings it to the attention of an admin - the two minority editors can always seek a real consensus for resolving the dispute. It's a bit hard to discuss these things in the abstract as context is very important. It's also not what I'd call a scientific process, so there may be judgment calls, and not everyone will agree. It can be painful. BTW, you appear to be editing a great deal in this topic area. Of course, you're not required to do so, but given your apparent interest in somewhat controversial articles and your questions about Misplaced Pages policies, why don't you register an account?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I had an account before, I decided I found the community aspects of the website to be really toxic and previous arguments that I had made would later be used against me. I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them. I also felt sort of sleazy interacting with racists/sexists on a personal basis, I guess that's the problem with editing in controversial areas. I can imagine the feminist/antifeminist thing will go on for a while, I think many of the antifeminists need the conflict in order to sustain, it seems to make the debates more interesting for them, but they do end up largely being about rhetoric compared to real-life issues and there are rarely references made to books on the subject (the "feminists run academia" thing is just a rebranding of the "cultural Marxism" argument used by racists, it just forces you to use low quality sources). Thank you for the explanation, I hope it gets solved soon --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Re: "I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them" - "You can't do that 94.175.85.144 - that's considered "avoiding scrutiny" and is an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Especially when editing in an area under probation you need to be transparent with your editing history and whether you had previous accounts--Cailil 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? I don't quite get why that's a rule but I should probably stop editing in that case --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it wasn't a rule banned editors would simply circumvent their restrictions and do exactly what you've been doing. I'm afraid I don't see why anyone could have such a worry about using an account - did you have a specific problem when you had an account?--Cailil 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also you could continue as you are IF you privately disclose your past account (so that there's no question of ban evasion) to an uninvolved admin (like Bbb23) and leave a note on the IP addresses you use noting that these edits are by the same person. Really it's easier to have an account--Cailil 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I know an editor who had an account and who then edited for long stretches of time using IP addresses. However, I - and another admin - knew who the editor was and that they were not violating policy by using IP addresses. Cailil's suggestion is one way to comply with the policy. Sorry our conversation got you into this, @94, but Cailil is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Really? I don't quite get why that's a rule but I should probably stop editing in that case --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Re: "I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them" - "You can't do that 94.175.85.144 - that's considered "avoiding scrutiny" and is an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Especially when editing in an area under probation you need to be transparent with your editing history and whether you had previous accounts--Cailil 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I had an account before, I decided I found the community aspects of the website to be really toxic and previous arguments that I had made would later be used against me. I prefer to edit with various IPs because then content disputes become more about the arguments themselves rather than who is making them. I also felt sort of sleazy interacting with racists/sexists on a personal basis, I guess that's the problem with editing in controversial areas. I can imagine the feminist/antifeminist thing will go on for a while, I think many of the antifeminists need the conflict in order to sustain, it seems to make the debates more interesting for them, but they do end up largely being about rhetoric compared to real-life issues and there are rarely references made to books on the subject (the "feminists run academia" thing is just a rebranding of the "cultural Marxism" argument used by racists, it just forces you to use low quality sources). Thank you for the explanation, I hope it gets solved soon --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be about winning or losing, although it certainly feels that way sometimes. It's supposed to be driven by reasonable consensus, and as you note with DEM, that's not a pure vote-counting exercise. If five editors are edit-warring, regardless of how many want a particular version, it's likely that the article will be locked because of the disruption. Even if it's not - say, for example, no one brings it to the attention of an admin - the two minority editors can always seek a real consensus for resolving the dispute. It's a bit hard to discuss these things in the abstract as context is very important. It's also not what I'd call a scientific process, so there may be judgment calls, and not everyone will agree. It can be painful. BTW, you appear to be editing a great deal in this topic area. Of course, you're not required to do so, but given your apparent interest in somewhat controversial articles and your questions about Misplaced Pages policies, why don't you register an account?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see, wouldn't that mean that, if three editors support the version of an article, but two do not, the three would always win in the case of an edit war, or does that change things? How does that stand with WP:DEM? Sorry if I'm bothering you --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're wrong. The edit warring revert policy applies by editor. There are, of course, guidelines that address how reverts should be handled by editors after a "first revert" - and editors often argue about their application - but those aren't policy and have little to do with rules like 1RR and 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it based on the number of total reverts rather than those by a single editor? If it was enforced, it would mean Zambelo, Sonicyouth86, CSDarrow and EvergreenFir would all have received blocks as they all reverted after the initial revert, which would stop the debate dead as more than half of its contributors would be blocked --94.175.85.144 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let's see. CSDarrow reverted first, followed by PearlSt82, followed by you, followed by Sonicyouth86, again by CSDarrow, and last by EvergreenFir. Although you reverted only once, you were part of the problem as far as I was concerned. You also pushed the envelope by adding tags, which technically were not reverts. No more disussion here. Do it over there. I'm tired and am going off-wiki shortly. I don't have time for this bickering.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't edit warring - I reverted once, and then the rest of the discussion occurred on the talk page. Zambelo; talk 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
3D (print me)
Hi Bbb23. Totally respect where you're coming from and I couldn't find anything on wiki but the band in question are all over the internet and getting write ups in US 3D print magazine journals about their music! The single was also played on the BBC Radio 6 music show 6Recommends (). Please will you consider re-establishing the post; althou I'm pretty new here so would value some time to get it right. Many thanks and keep up the good work. AngieBrowne (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's extraordinarily hard to keep an article about a song sung by a band or other artist for which there is no Misplaced Pages article. The article on Feral Five was also deleted (not by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Bbb23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect
Just to say, my past experience with indefinitely blocked users, especially socks is that their talk pages are often redirected to user pages to avoid confusion, as I did at User talk:HotHat.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, that's a decision the blocking administrator should make rather than a non-admin. My suggestion is if you want to do it, you ask the blocking administrator, or at least some administrator involved in the SPI. Just so it's clear, I don't think you did anything in bad faith. I just prefer to leave it the way it is. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement
Bbb23 I just wanted to point out an edit here that seems to me to be walking a very fine line WRT WP:BLP. It describes a named individual as a "radical nutcase" and another individual as "a highly partisan author". This isn't the worst I've ever seen but CSDarrow's rhetoric and attitude is escalating into inappropriate territories (see also his extremely civil comments to me at NPOVN)--Cailil 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb23, Cailil's intemperate tone and suggestions of filibustering are not helpful, here .— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)