User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Disruptive editing by 24.13.169.19 again

24.13.169.19 has blanked the Chicago Blackhawks vs. Vancouver Canucks section of the National Hockey League rivalries article at least twice without ever stating a good reason for it since you last blocked his account last year, among other nonconstructive edits to articles related to the NHL. Since it looks like he's been blanking his talk page every time someone warns him, there's no point in me leaving a message there. Might be time to consider another block. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with FlyingPenguin. 24 has just returned and is already disruptively editing again. He made three edits to more hockey articles and all three were reverted within minutes, one of them telling him yet again to stop the disruptive editing. You blocked 24 in December, then he was warned two more times after that for the same thing. He removed those warnings, saying "I get it!" in the edit summary for the second one. At 16:38, 10 June 2013‎, I warned him. At 00:10, 11 June 2013, he removed it and said "I truly get it this time" in the edit summary. At 00:16, 00:17, and 00:20, he went back to his disruptive editing, making those three edits that were quickly reverted. So obviously, he doesn't "get it" and is just playing games. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your vigilance. I've blocked the IP for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Bbb. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Men's movement

You have removed sourced material form the Men's movement page with the vague justification of "Copy right violation", without discussing it in talk as I requested and where I justified my edit.

Also are you making this edit your capacity as an administrator or a contributor. CSDarrow (talk)

Take your pick.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a responsibility to more upfront with me. Both in what capacity you are acting and the rationale behind your edit. CSDarrow (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How is that you don't understand what a copyright violation is? You copied the text from the SPLC article into the Wikipedia article. That's a copyright violation. Is that less "vague"? As for my capacity, any editor can remove a copyright violation and warn the editor who committed it. That said, I have the power to block you if you continue, and I will. I have no comment on the restoration of the same material that was previously removed from the article by an editor under a different rationale, but the copyright violation was blatant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blatant is was; answered in more detail on CSDarrow's talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CSDarrow, what a bunch of crap. Bbb is absolutely correct. It's a blatant copyright violation; it's a complete copy-and-paste from the SPLC website, every single word of it. And since when are articles from the SPLC's website considered a reliable source? I'm not saying they're wrong in what they're writing, but that they are obviously not neutral. More importantly, they obviously do not have editorial oversight like a newspaper or magazine, etc.

• SPLC website says: "includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women"
• WP article says: "includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women."
• SPLC website says: "Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."
• WP article says: "some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women"

So, yeah, take your pick. Give me a break. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155 Thank you for your suggestion they are helpful. As to why this could not have taken to the talk page before issuing me warning and reverting is beyond my understanding. As for the reliability of the SPLC as a source. You should express that view on the Men's_rights page were the 'consensus' is that the word of the SPLC is beyond questioning. CSDarrow (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand why copyright violations are removed without discussion, then you need to stop editing here until you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I need to take to Administrator Incident Notice Boards, this is approaching bullying imo. Also this discussion should be on the talk page of Men's movement not here. CSDarrow (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• You can do what you like. Bullying is coming here to harass Bbb about something as basic as a perfectly valid warning for copyright violation, and the article talk page is not the place for this: the problem was your particular edit. Now, since I am "involved" (in that I am pointing out that you were wrong and Bbb was right), I won't block you for bringing it to ANI, but I will advise ANI's readership that in my opinion your continued harping on this point (where it is so abundantly clear that you copied content from a website) is disruptive and amounts to harassment, doubly so if you try to create more dramah by bringing this pointless item to a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullying? Are you kidding me? I'm surprised Bbb has been so cordial with you about your blatant editing violation and rude implications. And if you truly believe that your edit needed to be discussed first prior to reverting, then I'm very concerned about your basic editing competence. As far as your threat to report Bbb23 for bullying, I can guarantee you that it won't work out well for you at all. Have you ever heard the term, "Beware the boomerang"? Not only are you completely wrong on this issue, you have been blocked twice in the past three months for disruptive editing in the very article being discussed here. And in case you're not aware of it, Bbb is a highly respected admin with a strong track record. What you should have done in this situation is say, "Thank you for reverting me, Bbb. I didn't realize that my edit was improper." And then I'm sure he would've been more than happy to educate you further on the matter. I suggest you drop this useless battle you're waging, and move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin Board Submission

There is an submission to Admin Notice boards that concerns you. CSDarrow (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/EW

Hi Bbb. :) There is a discussion at AN/EW regarding CSDarrow, in which your name was mentioned. So I just wanted to make you aware of it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month (prior to the AN/EW being addressed). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the blocking admin gave "Edit warring: again, on Men's rights movement)" as an explanation. The edit warring took place on men's movement, not men's rights movement, although the articles are clearly related and both on article probation with a 1RR restriction. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not sure exactly what that means as the far the block, but I assume you can let the blocking admin know. I wonder if he's even aware that a report was started at AN/EW. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I dropped the blocking admin a note. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont Remove crucial information from S.P.B article

A sincere request to you that dont remove facts and call them fan stuff. You are not an administrator. Your are not sup-posed to remove crucial information pertaining to someone's carrer. Also you are calling me whose fan?My additions were not made by me but was earlier present in the artcile and since they were missing I have added them back. The additions are nioether glorifying S.P.B but instead give out information about his first recording in Knananda, M.S.Viswanathan's impact on his career, his breakthrough in Malayalam. Do not revert unnecessarily. Only fan stuff should be reverted not such crucial facts.Haleveldzc (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I didn't raise it but he didn't notify you, so I am. Stalwart111 07:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of Graphite (software)

You deleted the article on "Graphite_(software)". Are you sure this action was in full conformance of G11? If it was, I'd be happy to rewrite the article to make it confirm. The original text of the article would help - do you have access to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.36 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you log into your account and make the request again, I will WP:USERFY the article for you, although, frankly, it wasn't much of anything. A few sentences, no sources, and written unencyclopedically.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your behaviour on Wikipedia and Joan Gerber

Judging by your recent lack of interest in the Joan Gerber page, take it that you agree that find-a-grave is an adequate source for Gerber's death? I would like to inform you that my edit conflicts with you, the oligarchy on your side, which was symbolised by those snarling hounds you got to attack me, and last but not least your sarcastic and antagonistic remarks towards me, does not make me believe that Wikepedia is a place where all you have to do is insult someone and police the page he is editing. No, my friend, Wikipedia is all about helpful information (maybe the same kind of information you would find in a library) and blocking my edits may have seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but what would you call a person that keeps someone alive beyond all reason (by the way, thinking that someone who has passed away to be alive is a symptom of several mental illnesses) doesn't seem right at all. It seemed like something of an insult to her daughter and friends (and why were Nancy Cartwright, Pat Fraley and Rob Paulsen statements on his podcast not considered reliable sources, they worked with her and kept in touch). All in all, your edits could be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Battleground. For example, Philip L. Clarke's ref for his death is Jack Angel releasing the news on his Facebook Page.Radiohist (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, easy tiger. What about my behaviour on Wikipedia? What about all the people who find being declared dead wrongly a lot more problematic than being declared alive wrongly?

More to the point, you do realise why oligarchy is the best form of government? (No word games with "aristocracy" here, please.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Radiohist, I simply didn't notice the edits to the article of a few days ago. Findagrave is not a reliable source. Neither is the one added by BMK (tributes.com). I've backed out both.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: For my part, thanks for clarifying the unreliability of those sources. I certainly agree that it's vastly preferable to incorrectly imply that someone is still alive (because we don't provide a date of death) then it is to positively but inaccurately state that someone has died who is actually alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OleOla is NOT the boss

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Has Hitler been reincarnated, or did he survive the unpleasant events in Berlin in 1945, and live to the ripe old age of 124? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

This user keeps adding this information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&diff=prev&oldid=559983381 to the Lee Newton article. I addressed the user about the situation on June 7, to stop adding the information. He added it again, by reverting my edit. He has reverted my edit twice now. I reverted as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&action=history. To not violate the three-revert rule, that you warned me about a few months back, I'm asking your assistance and judgement about what the user is adding. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

You are not one to talk, because while I have reinserted things on other people's talk pages, you have removed things from other people's pages. What is the dfference? You still didn't answer my question. I would like to know why were my edits removed and not the others.Radiohist (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I have removed edits from other users' talk pages only when I felt justified in doing so based on Wikipedia guidelines or policy. As for your question, your comments are frequently disruptive, but your last comments had crossed a line for me, so I removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Syngmung (talk · contribs)

Hey Bbb, in regard to this now archived thread, sure. I was being overly precise, perhaps. Do you mind writing up the ban and log it, if you have a minute? I'm not sure I have the brain power today. Thanks, and there's a barnstar and maybe some fresh eggs in it for you. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm happy to do that for you. I'm going to assume it's a 3-topic ban and describe it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

List of AFF Talents

Hi. Would you think that List of AFF Talents would meet the criteria of A3 speedy delete? It doesn't have really have any content and just contains links. Personally i am not sure. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a lousy article, but I'm not sure about its eligibility for speedy delete, particularly as a list article. The most conservative approach would be to leave the prod tag up and see what happens. If the tag is removed, you could AfD it. You could try tagging it for speedy delete, but I would let another admin make the decision as to whether it should be deleted. I've just blocked the user as they ignored my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It has a PROD on so i will leave it for now. Good on you for blocking him. He did recreate this article before you blocked him. He even restored the speedy delete template!! Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback wanted

Hi, I am trying to invite users to read my argument for the yyyy-mm-dd date format and what they think of it. If you have time to kill, would you please take a look at it? I'd appreciate it very much. Avengingbandit 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Zvazviri

Hi there Bbb23. I've just commented on the ANI thread about User:Zvazviri - At first glance, I didn't see too many issues, but I've took a closer look and there does seem to be some copyright infringements. I see you're editing them out now - Can I leave the warning/blocking to you as well? Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan, I didn't comment at ANI because I was too busy trying to clean up the law firm article. I'm not sure that what the user has done is blockable. They appear to have an agenda and they're also not very good at editing. One article they created was deleted per G12, but I'm not sure what else they've done that infringes (other than maybe the logo, which I've removed from the article). The article, although poorly crafted, is probably notable. I'll keep my eye on the article and on the editor, but I don't intend to take any action at this point. You're free to if you believe it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Couple more things. The user hasn't edited in three days, and based on their history, they don't talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, I didn't think there was much substance to the complaint either, but when you check some of his bigger edits (2000 characters +), there's a few issues that probably need looking at further. I'll give you an example from this diff;

Issue one

His edit: "Led by young and vibrant team of advocates, East African Law Chambers has attracted clients from all sectors and industries, not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, among other African countries."

From cb-lg.com: "Led by young and vibrant advocates who have achieved a strong reputation in the legal market and profession, East African Law Chambers continues to attract new clients from all sectors and industries. Our lawyers’ track records show that we have invaluable experience of not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, among several other African countries."

Issue two

His edit: "ounded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga Advocates has established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."

From afmpanga.co.ug: "Founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga, Advocates has firmly established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."

That's just one diff as well, and I'm fairly sure there's a few more just on that one edit. Anyway, if you could take a look that would be most appreciated, but no worries if you can't - It's just that I'm going to bed shortly! Perhaps a small warning might be appropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're gonna do extra work, the least I can do (smile) is warn the user, which I've done. I, too, am about to go off-wiki, but I'll try to leave a comment at ANI before doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw what appeared to be an image copyvio, so I nominated for deletion at Commons.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a much easier deletion process than Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That [[1]] was inappropriate

Blocked sock. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is within my right to have my talkpage blanked, but for the block notice. It was inappropriate to revert. 75.7.198.193 (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) If you are Fladrif, log in and do what you wish as long as it doesn't violate policy. As far as I can tell, your talk page access has not been revoked. I have no way of verifying you are who you say you are. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC) You're (i) editwarring and (ii) being a perfect ass over another user's talkpage. Is that confirmation enough, Nimrod? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.193 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC) IP blocked for block evasion, talk page access blocked for master for continuing personal attacks. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion

A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article, and the Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, SilkTork, I haven't decided whether I have the time or wherewithal to help out, but I'm not quite sure where you and others are in the process and what you expect of new helpers. I've read the top message from you, but that's from May 22. The body consists of a LOT of hatted discussions and a few that aren't. Maybe you could short-cut this for me a bit and tell me what tasks I could perform. To the extent it's relevant, I'm below average when it comes to knowledge about the Tea Party and political movements generally. My "talents" lie in neutrality and precision.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The dispute over the article is that it either contains too much negative trivia designed to disgrace the Tea Party movement, or that there is an image-cleansing attempt to keep out important factual negative information. A lot of material has already been removed from the article - much of this has been displaced into sub-articles where it can be fine-tuned. But there is more to be done. The current discussions are at the bottom of the page. Editors propose edits, and contributors discuss the edits to find consensus. When consensus has been reached, the edit is actioned. What would be helpful is if you could look at the proposals and the following discussion and add your input so that there is a new and independent voice. You could also look over the article and propose suggested changes yourself. Most of those involved have been involved for some time, so the arguments tend to go round in circles and no progress is made. There needs to be some pace injected into the process so that the bulk of the article is cleaned up before the end of the month - which is approaching fast. My experience of collaborative editing, is that if there are good editors involved, then much can be achieved in a week. I have approached several experienced and respected editors regarding this matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Films shot in Baltimore/Maryland

Regarding your message that I have added too many films to the categories shot in Maryland and shot in Baltimore; I am working with both intimate knowledge of these films and cross-referencing IMDB and the Maryland Film Office and the Baltimore Film Office web sites to confirm that all films had significant shooting in these areas. I am well aware that just because a film's narrative is set in Maryland it may not have been shot in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.225.223 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, everything has to comply with internal policies and guidelines. Whether something is true according to you is of virtually no significance. So, if you want to add these sorts of categories to articles, you first have to put material into the body that supports the cats. That material has to be noteworthy and reliably sourced (IMDb is not a reliable source).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved report

Rather than threatening people who have broken no policy, could you either conclude that ANEW issue properly, or commit the matter to an uninvolved admin who would be willing to do so.

• You have posted a message that suggests " Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page": please inform me as to what page is more appropriate than ANEW for seeking adjudication on a 3RR breach.
• You have recorded a false result on that report: although the user was temporarily blocked, that had nothing to do with the edits that breached 3RR.
• As you have threatened me with a block, please identify the rule that I am accused of having broken.

Kevin McE (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sultanate of Rum

Would you consider protecting Sultanate of Rum? An IP has been removing references and referenced information to push his/her own opinion. The same IP has even posted a fake source on the talk page.[2] Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is the fake source?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a fake source[3], "Even when the roman Turks became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Sunni Islamic world which had its centers in Greco-Turkish culture." -- Constantinople and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Lewis Bernard, page 92.

There is no book called "Constantinople and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", nor does that quote exist on page 92 of "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire".[4] The word "Greco" only appears on page 126. Neither does the words "roman Turks" appear within this book.

This quote is real, "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia." -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29.[5]

Apparently the IP believes me to be "Persian"? With edit summary and talk page statements, "Contrary to nationalist dogma..."[6][7]

Calls the sources I have presented on the talk page "bullshit", "Can't understand why you tell bullshit about us."[8] It is quite clear this "editor" has no respect for sources that do not agree with his opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And now, since the IP can not/will not bring any published source(s), I've been called a racist and demagogue.[9] "You are &%$!? demagogue. Another reason why Europe must reappraise his deeply rooted anti-Turkism. I just do explanatory work to your turcophobic statements go review your history. Instead to defame and misinform the people with such pseudo-arguments. Many people have morbid perception about us Turks and it is the reason why we still live in an apartheid between europeans and muslims europeans. We Turks belong to the european familiy of peoples and that is NOTHING what I claim nor a personal view who is "tagging article" but a proven truth. Not only is it unhuman to treat us like second class europeans, in fact it is a racial libel." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

KS, I've given the IP a final warning. Let me know if there are any further problems. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your support and unblock during the recent unpleasantness. PumpkinSky talk 22:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just implementing the community's clear consensus, PS. Best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But still deserved star. Best to you too. PumpkinSky talk 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi, Bb23. I've reviewed your block of Ohconfucius and unblocked him. (Sorry I can't wait to discuss, I'll be out of the house in minutes and there wouldn't be anything left of the block by the time I return — he's had to wait a good while for review.) He made one revert here and another 12 hours later, here. That doesn't look like blockable edit warring to me. The two other, consecutive, edits that removed content don't count as reverts, as you know. In a bit of a rush, Bishonen | talk 06:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Notice: If another admin wants to comment on this topic, they may. Any non-admin comments will be reverted regardless of their merit.

Bishonen, the block was justified. Here is the sequence of events:

• This report was filed at WP:ANEW by an uninvolved editor. The report was against Fangorn-Y. However, in the report, the reporter said, "I also warned User:Ohconfucius, but they have not edited the page again since the warning."
• I reviewed the contribution history of Edward Snowden and determined that both Fangorn and OhC violated WP:3RR.
• The diffs for OhC's violation are: [10]; [11]; [12]; and [13].
• The reporter's comment about OhC not reverting after a 3RR warning was placed on OhC’s talk page is correct, although an experienced editor shouldn't require such a warning. Nor is a warning required to block. However, I might still have been influenced by the reporter's statement except that OhC reverted a fourth time and then in the same minute warned Fangorn of 3RR. Talk about chutzpah. To see that, unless you have diffs broken down by seconds, look at OhC's contribution history at 16:15 June 15 (UTC).
• I should have blocked both editors, but I took into account other factors (which I won’t go into here to save space) and blocked only Fangorn.
• However, I warned OhC on his talk page, which you must have seen, here. The warning was as clear as it could be. OhC was told that if he reverted again in the article in the next 5 days, he risked being blocked. OhC did not respond to the warning.
• OhC reverted after the warning here. Although it was a violation of my warning, it was a pretty small revert, and I reluctantly elected NOT to block him for that revert.
• However, this second revert was much bigger. I blocked him a few minutes afterward, and in the block log I put edit warring and "reverting after warning".

Thus, the block was for reverting after my warning. The warning, by the way, is similar to ones some frequent patrollers of ANEW use. I believe this kind of warning was first used by User:EdJohnston. The OhC warning is a variant on the warning I usually use, but I felt it was the most appropriate given the circumstances. As I'm sure you know, actions based on edit warring reports are often based on a significant amount of administrative discretion.

I am troubled by what you did. If you didn't have the time to follow policy, you should have left it for another admin. I understand that you can't consult with me if I'm not around, although at the time you didn't know that, but even if you couldn't consult with me because I was off-wiki, WP:BLOCK requires you to take it to WP:AN. The only exception to that is "unambiguous error", and I this doesn't come anywhere close to that. At best, it's a disagreement between you and me as to the merits of the block. Putting aside policy, I would have been satisfied if there had even been an administrative consensus (at least one or two other admins who agreed with you) to unblock on OhC's talk page rather than at AN. I respect you as an admin, Bishonen, particularly your independence, but in this instance, honestly, your actions rankled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)