| Revision as of 23:51, 25 October 2012 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,614 edits →Deletion Request: moved to user's talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:57, 26 October 2012 view source AutomaticStrikeout (talk | contribs)27,236 edits →A dispute: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
| Hi, as a heads' up, the user blanked their talk page despite your warning. ] (]) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | Hi, as a heads' up, the user blanked their talk page despite your warning. ] (]) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, more than once and even once without logging in. Thanks for helping out, but they seem to have come around in the end and left in the block notice, request, and decline, so I'm going to hope they've finally seen the light and will leave it alone.--] (]) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | :Yes, more than once and even once without logging in. Thanks for helping out, but they seem to have come around in the end and left in the block notice, request, and decline, so I'm going to hope they've finally seen the light and will leave it alone.--] (]) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == A dispute == | |||
| I was going to ask Dennis to take care of this, but then I saw the same thing you saw and as you had responded there, you were the easiest one to ask: As you can see , a user has been going through and undoing another user's edits. Further he has labeled them as vandalism. However, I'm not sure which user is actually causing more disruption, and I'd like for an admin to take a look. ]] 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:57, 26 October 2012
|
|
Sad man.
You can not block me. "Threat of evasion"? There is no threat. It will be evaded, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know more about computers, networks, etc than you ever will in your entire life time. It was no threat, it was a fact. It will continue to be changed back, for however long I choose to keep doing so, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Block this proxy, i don't care. There are tens of thousands... no, Hundreds of thousands more. You can never block them all. On top of which, Dynamic IPs can EASILY be changed by a simple router reset, only idiots think blocking an IP makes any difference at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.157.121 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Operation Wetback
I hope you will excuse me for being so bold; I noticed that on 24 April 2012 you undid a revision applied by an unregistered user (76.194.229.1) to the Operation Wetback article found @ http://en.wikipedia.org/Operation_Wetback; I recently re-visited this article in the course of other research and checked the 4th ref., for the last sentence in the article's section "Civil rights violations". Reading the actual text of the book referenced @ the link provided (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3uD6PKXl3q4C&pg=PA603#v=onepage&q&f=false) reveals that the sentence from the "Encyclopedia of Latin Popular Culture", p. 603, does not actually refer to Operation Wetback, but rather to a similar operation conducted by the Chandler, Arizona Police Department in the summer of 1997. For this reason, I submit that neither the sentence, nor the reference, is applicable, and should indeed be removed on the grounds that the sourced material does not refer to Operation Wetback itself. I have taken the liberty of removing said sentence & reference rather than simply changing reference to a "cite needed" template, and await word on whether or not you concur. Thanks for your time in investigating this issue.Tech77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your actions look reasonable to me, although I'm not sure how helpful it is to include the book as an EL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Joaquin Farias
While this article does seem to be a copyright violation and at the very least had no secondary references (and I couldn't find any, which is why I marked it for speedy), the site "cognarius" seems to be reflecting any Misplaced Pages page at all and adding its own copyright. Weird, huh? heather walls (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct that cognarius is a Misplaced Pages mirror. I have therefore restored the article, leaving in place your spam tag, recorded the deletion history on the article talk page, and am leaving it for another admin to evaluate whether it should be speedily deleted. Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Olivier Manitara
I was just starting this page and you have deleted faster than I could put more information on the guy and the importance to include this article. This person is known in the french community, less known in the english. The Importance to include this article is to provide objective information for people on Olivier Manitara and his movement. It is not to promote him not to discredit him. He is the author of many books, founder of the new Essene school community and lecturer. You can see him at youtube. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you recreate the article in your sandbox and then move it to article space once you feel it will survive speedy delete and any other deletion process. Hopefully, that way you'll avoid the problem of a "premature" delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Your question
Regarding User talk:EdJohnston#Arthur Rubin, I'm afraid my response may have been terse. What was the 'previous brouhaha regarding Arthur?' The closure seemed to fit the report which was vague and contained ad-hominems, so I didn't look into any history. Your closures are generally so exact that I just skip over them when reviewing the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to the issue of blocking admins, which, if you recall, involved Arthur. There was no direct relationship between the recent report and that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then. I completely forgot the brouhaha, in which I had commented myself, so I guess that's a good sign :-). I usually agree with your closures except for that one case where an admin needed to be blocked. I now feel that admins should be promptly blocked since there was the regrettable case of someone who got desysopped and Arbcom said that edit-warring was part of the reason. Had blocks been handed out earlier, it's conceivably (though not certain) that this outcome might have been avoided. I played a small role in closing some EW cases without a block involving that person. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not the only person who forgets things. :-) Good thing was I learned from the discussion of that mistake that my understanding of how this works was incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then. I completely forgot the brouhaha, in which I had commented myself, so I guess that's a good sign :-). I usually agree with your closures except for that one case where an admin needed to be blocked. I now feel that admins should be promptly blocked since there was the regrettable case of someone who got desysopped and Arbcom said that edit-warring was part of the reason. Had blocks been handed out earlier, it's conceivably (though not certain) that this outcome might have been avoided. I played a small role in closing some EW cases without a block involving that person. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
help
Hi - I saw your warning, and appreciate the warning instead of a more serious sanction. I am still having trouble understanding what I did wrong. My understanding is that you need to revert twice in order to go over the 1RR limitation - but I only reverted once. The first diff that Huldra listed ( 1st revert: ) is not a revert of any other editor - it is the first edit I made to that page. Who did I revert? Dixy flyer (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the key language from the policy: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." In your first edit you removed material from the article. That's "undoing" another editor in the sense that the material you removed had to have been added sometime in the past by another editor or editors. Therefore, it counts as a revert.
- There are times when the first edit you make to an article will not be counted as a revert, but that's usually at the discretion of the admin reviewing the complaint. For example, if you had added material to the article, some admins wouldn't count that because you haven't "undone" anything. Or if you make an innocuous change to the article, like correcting a spelling error, that really has nothing to do with edit-warring, it probably wouldn't be counted.
- That said, you can't rely on the policy being interpreted in that way by all admins. And, particularly, in articles that have a special 1RR rule, you have almost no leeway for error. In any event, in your case, I suspect most admins, including this one, would call the first edit a revert for the purpose of the rule.
- In the future, the best thing is to err on the side of caution. If you're not sure, rather than revert, ask an admin in advance whether they think what you want to do is acceptable. Remember, most edits at Misplaced Pages are not urgent. You don't have to rush.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
Apologies for that, I did not reliaze, and was in the state of undoing it myself. — M.Mario (T/C) 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, things are a bit heated and moving too fast. Thanks for coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Misha B
Hi I seem to have got into an edit war with Wikimucker (talk can you help?
...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- As you no doubt noticed, I locked the article and left a comment on the talk page. BTW, accusing Wikimucker of "vandalism" will not help matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes sorry, I am afraid tiredness and a couple of other earlier disputes with editors on the same page that have gone to the BLPN and the dispute resolution board may have made me accuse too quickly. However he also removed the following sentence which was a positive review by the telegraph...this made me sure it was not done with good intention. A break will be good for me. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Breaks are like chocolate; they're almost always good for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes sorry, I am afraid tiredness and a couple of other earlier disputes with editors on the same page that have gone to the BLPN and the dispute resolution board may have made me accuse too quickly. However he also removed the following sentence which was a positive review by the telegraph...this made me sure it was not done with good intention. A break will be good for me. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
to Bbb23 tricia walsh smith WP:BLP
I do not understand why this violates WP:BLP. T he links are relevant links and the subject matter is on other wiki pages. its as relevant as walsh smnith's divorce. if you think not then the info about her divorce violates WP:BLP and falls into the same category as "tabloid" as the upcoming 8-10 week trial in the crown court of giovanni di stefano 82.45.198.131 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:COATRACK. This material is about Di Stefano much more than it is about Walsh-Smith, and it doesn't belong in her article. I also note you're having problems on the Di Stefano article as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
RFPP archive bot
FYI - I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
User talk:EverlastingGaze
Hiya! I noticed User talk:EverlastingGaze at CAT:RFU. I'm thinking perhaps he should have just been blocked for edit warring, since that was the only thing he did wrong. He obviously was not trying to conceal that he was the same editor as the IP. --jpgordon 05:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- My initial inclination was to block both the IP (EG reported to ANEW as an IP) and Cwmacdougall because both had been edit-warring. However, when I saw EG edit the article after the IP had reported Cwmacdougall for edit-warring, I changed my mind. It seemed to me like he was gaming the system. It also tends to support the notion that at that point he was trying to conceal who he was. Perhaps one solution is to unblock him if he agrees not to resume the edit-war on the article. In any event, I think you now have all the relevant facts on which to make a decision. I don't object to your doing whatever you think is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request of EverlastingGaze
Hello Bbb23. EverlastingGaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, De728631 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind, BWilkins has now declined it. De728631 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Blocked Nernst (talk · contribs) and User_Talk:Nernst
Hi Bbb23, you blocked Nernst (talk · contribs) this morning for a 3RR and socking. He seems to be having trouble understanding what to do with his extant talk-page editing abilities. Can you check out what he's been doing? Thanks. Zad68 17:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've restored the talk page and left a comment for Nernst.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
SarahNicole accounts
I have to agree with Nobody Ent on ANI that no apologies are necessary. I think my comment was a bit harsh and I would feel bad if you stopped contributing to ANI discussions in future because of this. Yeah, the blocks were probably a bit premature, but lord knows I've done that before too. I'm more annoyed with the whole sequence of events rather than any particular person's action. As for the unblocks - it seemed to me that we couldn't have two near-identical variants of SarahNicoleTaylor editing, so I left -3 blocked, but the usernames SarahNC and SarahNicoleTaylor were probably different enough to satisfy the policy. Why they chose these usernames in the first place is still a mystery...
Thanks. – Steel 19:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, but I do feel bad about what happened. I left one more comment at ANI just now, sort of summing up my perspective in the matter. My recollection is that school projects often cause problems, and that they are sometimes dealt with poorly, mainly because it's not clear it's a school project. I also was very tired (not an excuse, just some background) and about to go off-wiki just before I saw the topic at ANI. I should know better than to take such extensive action in those circumstances. But don't worry about discouraging me. Just a learning experience, although I regret all the commotion I caused. Thanks again for taking the time to come here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion Request
Moved to User talk:Nernst – Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
re: User:Nernst
Hi, as a heads' up, the user blanked their talk page despite your warning. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, more than once and even once without logging in. Thanks for helping out, but they seem to have come around in the end and left in the block notice, request, and decline, so I'm going to hope they've finally seen the light and will leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
A dispute
I was going to ask Dennis to take care of this, but then I saw the same thing you saw and as you had responded there, you were the easiest one to ask: As you can see here, a user has been going through and undoing another user's edits. Further he has labeled them as vandalism. However, I'm not sure which user is actually causing more disruption, and I'd like for an admin to take a look. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)