Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.90.150.249 (talk) at 15:39, 25 March 2014 (→‎Mattersight Corporation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caution
  • 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.

Xmas card

Fiddle Faddleis wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

Holiday wishes!
Bbb23, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Shaku india (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[ shaku_india on Mughal-e-Azam] Shaku india (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You made comments on my editing of Mughal-e-Azam. Pl note that all my editing have been done after talking to the authority on the matter. I have discussed the topic of Mughal-e-Azam with the original producer also the producer of the colour version i.e. Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt Ltd. (Shapoorji Pallonji group)

Therefore, I would appreciate if do not make derogatory remarks about my comments. And if you still do not believe me, let us jointly send a mail to Sterling Investment and ask them the facts and correct the same.

Infobox television episode

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation

You seem to like to attribute malice to me, and I am not sure why. If I incorrectly formatted the list of people who have been notified, thats fine, but it was not done as retaliation for anything. How is my notification on their talk page not a notification? Also note that I did not revert their revert, even though it was in violation of the WP:1RR, instead giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. Brian95620 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. You are new here. You have only a handful edits and all of the article edits are to A Voice for Men. PearlST82 reverts you and you run to the probation page to log a notification. It's hard to accept good faith when confronted with that set of facts. And PearlST82 did not violate WP:1RR, whereas if you had reverted their revert, you would have. You figure out why your post to their talk page was not a legitimate notification. Perhaps you should read policies and instructions more carefully, particularly before jumping into controversial areas of this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So being new is somehow wrong? You might want to rethink that. I reverted vandalism on (22:20, 17 March 2014), PearlST82 reverted that revert at (12:56, 18 March 2014‎), 14 hours and 36 minutes later. This is the policy in place that I believed was violated. If this policy only applies if the same editor has reverted the same material twice within 24 hours, then clarifying the policy to say that would be helpful.
"Another community discussion was initiated and consensus was reached to limit reverting on the article to WP:1RR until October 20, 2013. The discussion and closure can be found here until October 27, 2014. Any editor reverting any material, even if it is completely different material, twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning."
Legitimate notification? I used both the provided example(from you), and provided template. While mine may not have come across as polished an expert admins would have, it can hardly be said that the editor did not get notified.
Last time we spoke, you thanked me for remaining civil, and I found that odd. Now I understand it better. Brian95620 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. You quote the material from the probation page and then you say that PearlST82 violated 1RR. As the material says, he has to revert twice. It has nothing to do with the material reverted. He only reverted once (as you did). Your notification was wrong. Read the probation page. I don't remember thanking you for being civil (sorry), but I never said you were uncivil here, and I don't know why you found it "odd" at the time. Were you not civil?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted material does not say that the same editor must have done the first revert as the second, only that an editor can not revert a material covered by that policy a second time within 24 hours. My intention was not to get this person sanctioned, I preferred to work this out and notify them of the policy, and thats why I left it for them to do themselves. I don't know why the editor felt like I shouldn't have removed vandalism, but another editor has come along and cleaned it up, so the issue is closed.
Sorry, you thanked me for remaining polite, not civil. I was tired and working off my memory of our conversation from December. I always to try remain civil, and disliked the attribution of malice, especially since that was far from my intent. Have a good day. Brian95620 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To save Bbb some time I figure I might clarify something for you Brian. First is 1RR, revert rules apply to an editor on an article, not the content of the article. To explain, 1RR means that you as a person can only make one change on this particular article within a 24 hour period. At that point you are at 1 Revert, if someone else who has not edited that article that day undoes your work then they are also at 1 Revert. If you re-instate that material in the same day you have gone to 2 reverts and have broken the rule. Does this make sense? The rule is similar to the general site rule of WP: 3RR with the only change being one revert instead of three. Second Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and accusing someone of vandalism when it does not fit the meaning is considered uncivil. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you further explain the A10 Speedy Deletion of Goodcents Subs & Pasta's

I was checking to see if a certain fast food chain called Goodcents Subs & Pasta's had a page on Wikipedia. I was bummed out it wasn't but instead was speedied for A10 because it duplicated the topic on Casey's General Store. The problem is that Mr. Goodcents Subs and Pasta's are not related in any way at all to Casey's at all per it's article and the Goodcents History found here at http://www.franchising.com/mrgoodcents/ I am planing on finding more sources for this page to be created. I amwondering what existed on this page before it was deleted so I don't violate the Wikipedia Licenses if I recreate the article. I may need to revert the mentions of Casey's in it as that is not any way related to Mr Goodcents. Please userspace the article if needed. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 17:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawblade5, I'm reluctant to WP:USERFY it as there's too much misinformation. Some of the deleted article relates to Casey's and some of it to Goodcents, but the worst part is some of it isn't obvious. My guess is the editor who created it, Popcorn700, used the Casey's page as a template and did a sloppy job. I think you're better off starting from scratch. There's less risk that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who (song)

Leave the article for this page alone.

Hostile editor

Hi. GabeMc is being pretty hostile towards me, again, after I posed a pretty simple question at Talk:Are You Experienced, where I wanted to know why he had removed a review quote from one of the article's sections. His response to me included ripping the reviewer's credibility (which, as I showed in a past argument, shouldn't be questioned as far as rock criticism goes), and continuing to accuse me of "POV pushing" (which he did five times in that past discussion, and numerous times before at other articles). He's been blocked not too long ago for making personal attacks, and since I can't effectively communicate with him (without being insulted or accused of something), I was wondering if I could get your thoughts--either an opinion on the question I posed at Talk:Are You Experienced, or what to do in general when I have to deal with this editor in articles I'd like to edit. Dan56 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's been harassing me ever since he started several disputes at AYE in January. For his recent disruption at Sgt. Pepper see here. FTR, Dan has started disruptive content disputes at every article I've worked on since January, including Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Jimi Hendrix, Are you Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland. For other recent content disputes in which Dan is a driving force see: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give editors some latitude to thrash out differences on my talk page, but only if it's constructive. I don't see you as interested in resolving your differences. You're just complaining about each other's conduct. I'm not another WP:ANI. So, if you want to complain about the other's conduct, please go to the real ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TopazHurricaneHwy101

You might be interested... Peridon (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it took me a moment to absorb what had happened as my eyes glued to "my" acceptance of the request, and I thought I don't remember doing that. I'm glad he's egalitarian, though. As I'm sure you're aware, he then forged your name. Thanks for the heads up, Peridon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such arrogance on this site! The only thing preventing me from putting in a formal ban request is that I don't know how to.--Launchballer 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Such arrogance"? Neither Peridon nor Bbb23 are that arrogant  ;-) DP 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Topaz.--Launchballer 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first forgery I've seen, but it's the first one where they've done it twice, having both 'unblocks' up at once. He's probably learned now that posting templates and unblocking aren't the same thing. (As a very new admin, I made the same mistake...) Peridon (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about "I'll have to create another sockpuppet" - he need not have any further affiliation with the site!--Launchballer 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Catan

Thanks for deleting Republic of Catan (again). FYI, I have opened a SPI on A06jk2 if you could check out when you have time. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth

Ok. Following the discussion, could you also revert the contribution of User:Der Statistiker on Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and block this page. The official name of the region is Ile-de-France and nothing else (cf INSEE document). Administrator Callanecc already block the other page with "Ile-de-France". Thank you.

Meatpuppett?

Consensus that this should not be continued. Second big bad admin (me) reminds all parties to act with proper decorum or someone's feelings are going to get hurt. Proper decorum also means no charges of canvassing or meating if they cannot be substantiated with rock-solid evidence. Thank you all; may the congeniality continue elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, do you still think that its a personal attack to accuse Staticvapor of meatpuppeting for Dan? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest I'm not sure about your interpretations of policy, as nobody seems to agree with you. FWIW, that's the fourth page where Static has "intervened" in Dan's favour in disputes with me this month: Unapologetic, Wikiproject:Albums, Sgt. Pepper, and AYE. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides obstructing me and protecting Dan, what interest does Staticvapor show in psychedelic rock albums? Like Dan, they improve jazz and r&b albums articles, but they don't show any history of improving or editing articles in this genre except to support Dan. I'm curious, what's your working definition of meatpuppettry? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To question Bbb23's interpretation of policy is quite laughable. I have not intervened anywhere. I have had Unapologetic and the Wikiproject page (where I was involved in the dispute first not Dan), was invited to the Sgt Pepper discussion and was led to AYE via another discussion. Just because everyone disagrees with you, does not make them meatpuppets, sad how I have to repeatedly explain that to you. Another thing that goes without saying, I edit hip hop and rock articles, never jazz and hardly r&b, so that is another thing you are wrong about. You make statements without knowing any facts frequently. STATic message me! 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
◔̯◔ STATicVapor was invited by John, who reached out to his talk page. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an invitation, Dan; that's an edit warring warning. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
◔̯◔, "could you contribute to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Are You Experienced" sounds like an invitation, Gabe. Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Static reverted in your favour and more than an hour later John warned him about edit warring. IMO John is asking them to discuss versus revert. As I said before, your understanding of policy is confusing. Static showed up to an article that they had never edited before and reverted to your preferred version more than an hour before John asked them to discuss at the talk page, but you somehow interpret that as an invitation to the dispute that they had already entered into an hour earlier. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting the consensus that he is a reliable source for reviews at WT:ALBUMS, not running around supporting Dan56. Stop being paranoid. I love how you ignored everything I said in my post, because all your points were wrong, yet again.. Asking "them", he asked you too as you are the one that started all this. Technically that page needs to be restored before your bold change was made. STATic message me! 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FA version did not include the BC cruft. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
◔̯◔ The link in your "you don't see this" comment was to Static's voice of support at the talk page, which he made after John had invited him. Dan56 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56, are you saying that this edit occurred before this edit and this edit? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, its just the wrong link but you knew what I meant and that's what I'm talking about with you. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't enjoy all of Dan's pretty icons and the incredible congeniality of this discussion, why don't you all go back to John's talk page where you've had a running "discussion" for a couple of days. John seems to be (a) more patient than I am and (b) more knowledgeable about the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mattersight Corporation

Since you show up in the deletion log: I noticed some six hours ago a new user trying to AfD and at the same time speedy tag Mattersight Corporation. I reverted and left them a polite message asking, if I could be of any help. No answer. Now a new user pops up and smacks a G11 on it, and a {{Spam-warn}} on the talk page. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 01:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting conundrum. I removed the speedy tag. Bbb can, if he likes, block the two SPAs--I already met my quotum for this month. Bbb, I'll leave the decision to possibly protect the article to you as well; an argument can be made for it. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I would like to discuss as the person who flagged the article. I noticed that several references are links to material—such as news releases, an annual report, several articles—written by executives who represent the company. Several references are duplicates, one is a broken link. I ask that the sources be reviewed, because I believe as they now stand, are not of the correct quality to establish notability. There has also been debate on Wikipedia about whether publicly traded corporations are inherently notable, and the consensus has been that public status does not mean automatic notability. Thank you, Delade 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you are? And your relation to KentalTX is? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to log into my other account and had trouble resetting the password so created a new one. I apologize for the confusion. If I've done something against Wikipedia protocol I truly apologize and would appreciate any help you can offer redirecting this discussion. No need to take any big, serious Wikipedia action.. just seeking discussion and some clarification. Thank you,Delade 10:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'll watch the article and both users. At this point I don't see any immediate need to take administrative action. The two accounts (socks or meat) have apparently withdrawn. If that changes ... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Az-507

Thanks for your block. I've now given him (and 2 other editors) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 sanctions warnings and handed out more blocks. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug, I'm not as used to thinking about WP:ARBAA2 as other arbitration cases. I'm glad you took care of the notifications.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'd forgotten also but saw a notice on one. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, about things...

Hey, Bbb, about your block of Daveandbusters1345: inserting links to YouTube videos of ceiling fans is apparently a thing trolls do; it's happened quite a few times before (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ghhgjjf/Archive and things like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_140#Ceiling_fans?). It might be better to just hardblock, rather than softblock, but I just wanted to check with you before doing anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper, I found out about this user because GB fan is on my watchlist. On the face of it, I thought the argument between the user and GB fan to be patently silly, but I was too lazy to investigate it, whereas a soft username block was easy. If you've determined that a hard block is warranted, go right ahead. Frankly, I find his answers to the standard questions on his talk page to be perfunctory and unconvincing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after looking at the block settings, it looks like you actually already hardblocked them, so I guess we're good. I'll just leave a note on the talk page for other people considering the unblock request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain to me why it looks like a hardblock. I read WP:HARDBLOCK and am not sure I understand it as there are so many permutations and, in my view, so little clarity. Just so you know, when I block someone, I generally do not change the default settings of the block form - and I didn't here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the default settings are those of a hardblock. A softblock is basically unchecking all the boxes in the blocking form. By default, "Block account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" are checked; this means that, when you block someone, the software will prevent them from creating another account to evade the block, and will also automatically block any IP addresses that user has used, should they try to edit while logged out to evade the block. A soft block does neither: the idea is that, since the only problem with the account that one would softblock is their username, they should be allowed to simply abandon it and create a new, presumably policy-compliant username without needing to go through the unblock process. That's why the softerblock template talks about creating an account with a new username: the soft block is supposed to allow them to do it. Make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WK, didn't you tweak those settings for me at one time? Very useful. I always wondered why we blocked for a user name and then, by default, didn't allow them to get a new user name. Amazing, but I actually remembered (correctly) being sideways involved with that ceiling fan nonsense--a miracle at my advanced age. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just about to explain that; you edit-conflicted with my explanation of it, funnily enough. I wrote a script that will allow one to specify the default block settings for each block type (so that, if you choose {{softerblock}} from the menu, it'll automatically uncheck all the boxes to make it a soft block). It's User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/blockDefaults.js; you can install it in your vector.js in the usual way, of course. Once you do, you'll see a little sentence appear in the block menu that says "To adjust the default settings for the different block types, please go to this page."; That page is where you can set your preferences for each block type. It comes with some more specialized default settings, including automatically changing it to a soft block when one selects {{softerblock}}, but you can customize it any way you like. Lemme know if you need help with it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WK, not really. I used to block promotional usernames with {{Uw-spamublock}}. I was criticized for being too harsh, although my critics could not come up with a time when that template should be used (pet peeve at Wikipedia are templates that people effectively say should never be used). Does usage of that template change the default settings of the block form, or are the settings the same no matter what the basis of the block is? We don't make it easy for administrators, do we? And back to the softerblock. My understanding is it still requires an unblock request and someone who asks the standard questions as to what the user will do at Wikipedia after the account is renamed. So, bottom line, I don't really understand what I'm supposed to do and in what circumstances - and it doesn't help that administrators disagree on these issues. If there's a "correct" way of handling all this, (a) the block form should be tailored based on the kind of block and (b) the correct way should be documented as policy, or at least a guideline. Drmies, I will let you know when you have reached "advanced age". Clue: you're not there yet, so you'll have to find other defenses when you can't remember something.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my script above will do exactly that tailoring, but no, if you're not using my script, Wikipedia will not change the default settings based on the template used on its own. But no, the softerblock is not supposed to require an unblock request. Look at the wording of the template: please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy and You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the ... all say that an unblock request/standard question/etc. are not required by the subject of a softerblock. That's why it's considered "less harsh" than a spamublock. The difference basically is that softerblocks are for people who are editing more or less reasonably, but their usernames themselves suggest that their account is a role account; e.g. accounts that are evidently tied to a company or position (e.g. "User:Coca-Cola corporate account" or "User:Pepsi sales manager") rather than a specific, actual person. The idea is that their edits by themselves are okay, so they already understand the answers to the standard questions and that Wikipedia isn't for spam: they just need to tie their accounts to themselves, not their company or position, so we don't force them to seek an unblock. If they have a bad username and their edits are spammy, then we give them a spamusername hard block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WK, you may not agree with everyone else, but at least your explanation makes some sense. In the future, I'm going to exercise discretion as to which template to use when blocking someone with a promotional username. Sometimes it's obvious to me. Other times, it's not. For example, when an editor uses a company username and creates an article about the company that is A7- and/or G11- eligible, and that's the only thing they do, do you use spamublock? It becomes a little easier when they do other things besides just create the article, i.e., advertise the company on their own user page, add entries to other articles, recreate the article after it's been deleted, etc. Anyway, I'll ponder this a bit more and decide which template to use when. At the same time, I will take advantage of your script, and if I need help with it (likely), I'll let you know. You're a good fellow to take the trouble to continue explaining things until it finally penetrates this literal thick head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the rule of thumb I use is this. I ask myself, "if this person didn't have a bad username, would I still have an issue with their edits, from a promotional perspective?" If yes, then hardblock (spamublock). If no, then softblock. So, in your example, if they've made an article that's G11-eligible, then hardblock, because that's a spam problem regardless of whether their username is a problem or not. Most likely a hardblock if it's A7, too, although it would depend; if they made an honest effort to be neutral with the article, but they're just not notable yet, I might consider a softblock (though I might still hardblock in the end; depends on the case). If they're just making factual corrections to their company's article or something like that (e.g. changing 2010 figures in their infobox to 2013 ones, with a source), then I'd softblock them, since they're not showing any sign that they don't already know the answers to the standard questions. I don't know how good a fellow I am; I just kinda do stuff and try to be helpful. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the only time I block users for their username is when I'm evaluating articles at CSD. Therefore, it sounds like what I used to do was what you would have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((Fans are back! See Tory Ailes 243 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, a wiki thicket. I'm just waiting to hear from WK for his view on tagging them and what to do about the disconnected SPIs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJCC Deletion

Hi! I am the one who created the article JJCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JJCC). Although it is already deleted, I still want to request for you to un-delete it. I already added an explanation on the talk page before it was deleted but I will explain it again. I believe that JJCC is significant enough to have a wiki page. JJCC is a Korean boy band who debuted in March 20. Although they are relatively new, they were already mentioned in major Korean media sites, and even in the USA (the New York Post). They became known because of Jackie Chan, producer and manager of the group. He is responsible for forming their group and they are under his company. They already performed live in a major music show in Korea and they will release a yet-to-be revealed album in March 24. Besides music, two of the members had been guests of two different variety shows. All of these are included in JJCC wiki page. Here is one link to confirm my statement: http://nypost.com/2014/03/11/jackie-chans-k-pop-boy-band-to-release-debut-album/ . I hope you will re-try to think of whether your decision to delete it is the right thing (although I am not saying that you're wrong). Thank you!

PS: I'm not sure if approaching you in your talk page is the right thing to do, but if not, I'm sorry.001Jrm (talk)

Hi, Jrm, coming to my talk page is great, not to worry. Frankly, I think the NY Post article is more about Jackie Chan than it is about JJCC, but ... I won't restore the article. However, if you wish, I'll WP:USERFY it. Perhaps you can find more about the band that will help the article be kept, at least past the speedy delete stage. When you're ready, you can submit it to WP:AFC so other editors can give you feedback about whether it's ready to go live. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably my wrong choice of link that made you decline. haha. Anyways, thank you for reviewing the article and I accept your decision. I would also want to ask you to WP:USERFY it. I'll just re-edit the article and add more about them. Thank you for guiding me! I appreciate it a lot! :) 001Jrm (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. It's at User:001Jrm/JJCC.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack accounts

(original title was: User:Writ Keeper sucks‎)

Considering that these are clear attack accounts, should we really be tagging these socks? --Rschen7754 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the tags. Just please explain why the fact they're attack pages changes the equation. It's not readily apparent to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these pages now come up in search results whenever someone searches for those users... and the fact that those account names were globally locked and oversighted is important too. Creating those userpages defeats the purpose of the oversighting, no? --Rschen7754 09:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that not only should the tag be removed, but the page should be redeleted and that will prevent the page from being discovered in a search? I understand that, but it's not clear to me what was oversighted, and I have trouble seeing the global lock and how that is relevant. Sorry to be dense.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It's quite a stretch to justify a "BLP" deletion concerning a non-notable Wikipedia editor. If User:Doc9871 is a homo were to surface, I would not think BLP would apply. Doc talk 09:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a BLP deletion. --Rschen7754 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit you are, with G10. Deleting a sock account page (denying tracking of it as well) based on it being an "attack page" because a user's name was disparaged? I do not agree with this. Doc talk 09:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the summary: "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" Note that it says or not and. --Rschen7754 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An attack page it still isn't. Preserving records of sock accounts for others to analyze is not something that should be hindered like this. It's evidence not just for admins to analyze: and admins come and go anyway. I do not think this is an attack page by definition. Doc talk 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's unpack your statements a little bit. What you are saying is that 1) we must tag all sockpuppets, no matter what, 2) the usefulness of all these sock tags for tracking down all these sockpuppets is more important than treating our contributors with dignity (which by the way, speaking as someone who is a SPI clerk and steward, it generally is not very helpful), and 3) this gives free reign for sockmasters to create the most vile and disturbing names, or names that leak personal information, and then we must tag the accounts, explicitly failing WP:DENY and WP:HARASS, and possibly our wmf:Privacy policy. I'm sorry, but that is not a Wikimedia that I want to contribute to, or that anyone wants to contribute to. --Rschen7754 09:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say any of what you just said. You might have inferred it from something I said, but I said nothing of the sort. Doc talk 05:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the m:oversight policy, stewards can lock+hide attack usernames, or local oversighters can block+hide attack usernames, out of courtesy for the people being attacked. This is for the same reasons that we revdel edit summaries where users are attacked. This means that the account names disappear completely from all public lists. But when you create a userpage with the attack name, that kind of defeats the purpose of that courtesy hiding, don't you think? Furthermore, when we reach a certain number of socks, we don't always tag them, or even list them on the SPI page, per WP:DENY. Tagging is not mandatory and never has been, and should not be done in cases where tagging would be an obvious negative, such as when the username is an obvious attack. (And yes, I can verify with my steward hat on that those account names were hidden globally, and it's not a leak of private info since those names were obviously recorded somewhere else). --Rschen7754 09:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to spell that out. I totally agree, and supporting contributors is very important for the health of the project. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, I'm not sure I understand all the technicalities, but I understand the concept better. I can see you deleted the user pages, so there's nothing left to do. I'll note this for the future when I'm clerking a report or even blocking on my own. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=601206210"