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.

A good start

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

ANI

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

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

Russian language in Ukraine

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

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

Blocking Tjo3ya

Hi BB,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

AIV

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

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

Salvador Puig Antich

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

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

Your recent ruling

Part of your ruling concerning [[1]] seems to have disappeared. Its not clear whether something important has been lost. Could you please clarify? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

IP disruption

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

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

Authoritative and perfunctory

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

Redirect from user space to article space

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

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

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

Talk: Asma al-Assad

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

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

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

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

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

Same thread, first response. I know better. [2] Veriss (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

edit request

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

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

Acoma Magic block

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

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

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

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

Retrieve the best version

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

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

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

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

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

KnowledgeisGood88

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

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