| Revision as of 18:45, 7 March 2019 view sourceZzuuzz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators136,891 editsm Reverted edits by 2600:1011:B16F:AE10:3112:A4EA:5DE1:9C0 (talk) to last version by Bbb23Tag: Rollback← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:23, 7 March 2019 view source Geo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits →A suggestion: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
| Hey bb, My gut is telling me that ] might be a sock for someone, I don't know who know, it's just the fact of edits directed to ] which are also related to a discussion at ], I wasn't sure to post to the sockpuppet board as I really don't really have any other evidence, thought I leave it with you for know. Cheers. ] (]) 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | Hey bb, My gut is telling me that ] might be a sock for someone, I don't know who know, it's just the fact of edits directed to ] which are also related to a discussion at ], I wasn't sure to post to the sockpuppet board as I really don't really have any other evidence, thought I leave it with you for know. Cheers. ] (]) 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | ||
| == A suggestion == | |||
| I think some of the comments you have recently addressed to me, and actions you have taken, might be hard for you to explain to your peers. Given your repeated comments indicating limited patience, I am not going to defend myself from . | |||
| Instead, may I remind you that you are not the only Checkuser? If there is something about the SPI reports I have submitted that bugs you, but which you don't want to explain, or can't explain, perhaps you should consider simply letting someone else deal with reports I make? ] (]) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:23, 7 March 2019
|
|
SPI Clerk
Hi. Can I ask why you removed me from the list of trainee-hopefuls? (Special:Diff/885178170) The summary of no thank you
doesn't really explain why. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
You deleted my page
Wow. You have deleted my Misplaced Pages page. I've spent time on it. It's not a hoax. It's real. Give me some time to get citations. Just undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorfolkIsland123 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- No one is going to restore the article, and you've already been told that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Gharaibeh
Dear Bbb23, I would like help or clarification regarding the deletion of article entitled "Gharaibeh." I was disheartened to see the article deleted based on the opinion of one Mossab Banat. The article was not a vanity article and was well referenced. The ethnic makeup of Jordan is such that one will see personal biases and prejudices factor into opinions such as the opinion of the person who requested the deletion of the article. I believe that the request was based on Mossab Banat's bigotry and Islamic extremism and not on concern for factual accuracy of the article. I believe the article was factually sound and the referenced tribe is well accomplished and notable: any quick google search will bear that fact. I am respectfully asking for you help in un-deleting the article and more referencesGharaibeh (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC) will be added by more users in short order. Sincerely, N. Gharaibeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharaibeh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article was deleted per AfD. I had nothing to do with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera
Hi Bbb23, I am new to Wiki. You are doing great and in the process you deleted the page I created "Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera" citing the reason as G11. Let me assure you, its not directly G11 (promotion and advertising) although technically it may seem so due to use of certain words. Can you please revert it so that I can edit it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SintuC (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've restored the draft for you. I strongly suggest you eliminate the promotional, effusive language from the article. You personally may feel that the subject walks on water, but articles here must be written in a neutral manner. Material like
- "Venerable Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera (12 November 1945- ) is a Buddhist monk and a social activist of the Indian subcontinent and works for peace and prosperity and the emancipation of the needy and destitute children.
- Born and raised in a Buddhist family and having observed the misery of human sufferings since childhood, he chose to follow the path of truth, peace and non-violence. Thus, at an early age, he was ordained as a Monk forever."
- must be rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Paul Atherton - Case Law
BB23 I am slightly bemused, what was self serving about citing case law on Paul Atherton's Misplaced Pages page. The amendment was referenced both by the published Judgement from the Royal Courts of Justice and from a recognised and reputable UK Newswire the Disability News Service https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/about-us/ be grateful of some clarification? 167.98.16.78 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I stated in my edit summary, take the issue to the article Talk page. You'll need a consensus to add any of that material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BB23 as you're aware not a prolific editor. I thought you meant this talk page. Is it the Talk page of Paul Atherton you mean or the Talk page of my contribution? Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.16.78 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I said "article Talk page", which obviously means the Atherton Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually you didn't you said "take to Talk page" which means nothing to an inexperienced user. Nor do you explain what exacly is required? With such immense amount of editing experiencing on your side I would have expected far more assistance for an inexperienced editor. You've also yet to explain why you deemed Case Law to be self-serving when the only thing it does is serve others, as can be demonstrated from the Twitter feed around the Subject (I'm unable to post a link on Misplaced Pages to the search but if you search Twitter with the quote "DWP Failed for years" you'll discover part of the debate, from many reputable sources, in respect to the case), would appreciate some clarification and what is actually required to do to "take to talk page" of Paul Atherton as things stand there's just a debate around the pages deletion back in 2012. Thanks. 93.186.152.12 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I said "article Talk page", which obviously means the Atherton Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BB23 as you're aware not a prolific editor. I thought you meant this talk page. Is it the Talk page of Paul Atherton you mean or the Talk page of my contribution? Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.16.78 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Matt Bellamy
Hi Bbb23. A little while ago you protected this page from this repeated disruptive behavior. Protection ended yesterday and today the IP is up to the same again. Please could you look into it. Cheers. Robvanvee 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23. Are you able to help here or should I ask elsewhere. This IP continues to add poorly sourced material to a BLP article. Cheers. Robvanvee 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the latest edit that I'll refrain from reverting for now. Robvanvee 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Done this time for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Robvanvee 14:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the latest edit that I'll refrain from reverting for now. Robvanvee 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
MariaJaydHicky
Back with new IP, first edit is genre-warring on a Mariah Carey album article. Geolocates to the exact same place as previous MJH sock IP .--NØ 12:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing. - checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Ramsey Campbell
Thanks for your feedback on my edits to this page. They're appreciated. I'm new to Wiki and am still learning how best to manage edits. I would like to add that although some aspects of the edits you have deleted do not fit with Wiki's policies, many others were, I feel, fine, such as biographical info etc. If I restore the edit and add citations where appropriate and edit some of the language that feels "promotional", would that be agreeable? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Witbysea: You can try, but if there are still problems with the material, don't be surprised if I undo your edit(s). Thank you for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing. You might try making smaller edits and waiting to see if they stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain...
Could you please explain further why you undid my edit?
Your edit summary called it a "mess". It looks properly formatted to me.
I was going through my watchlist, looking for other instances, when I saw you reversion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created a report on the Talk page of the case. I assume that was a mistake, but nonetheless, I had to delete it. Then you created a weird, possibly partial, report on the right page. The "mess" was a combination of both actions on your part. I reverted the project page edits because part of your edit put a "comment" in the wrong section, and the rest of it looked like you hit Publish before you were done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I created a union list, intended to contain all of the IP addresses this wikistalker has used. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses they had used in the past. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses that had been temporarily range-blocked.
Did you mean to imply, in your comment above, that there was a wikidocument that barred this kind of use of WP:SPI talk page?
I didn't realize you deleted this list.
As for whether I put a "comment" in the wrong section... As with previous instances, I placed a brief history of the wikistalking prior to the diff with the evidence. If this is the incorrect format then previous reports were also incorrect. Did you mean to say the previous reports were incorrect? Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is my last comment to you. The Talk page is not a lab for you to play with. If you can't file a report properly on the project page, use your sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is my last comment to you. The Talk page is not a lab for you to play with. If you can't file a report properly on the project page, use your sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I created a union list, intended to contain all of the IP addresses this wikistalker has used. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses they had used in the past. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses that had been temporarily range-blocked.
Possible sock?
Hey bb, My gut is telling me that User:109.152.199.173 might be a sock for someone, I don't know who know, it's just the fact of edits directed to Marc-André ter Stegen which are also related to a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, I wasn't sure to post to the sockpuppet board as I really don't really have any other evidence, thought I leave it with you for know. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion
I think some of the comments you have recently addressed to me, and actions you have taken, might be hard for you to explain to your peers. Given your repeated comments indicating limited patience, I am not going to defend myself from your unfair and insulting characterization that I am "obtuse".
Instead, may I remind you that you are not the only Checkuser? If there is something about the SPI reports I have submitted that bugs you, but which you don't want to explain, or can't explain, perhaps you should consider simply letting someone else deal with reports I make? Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)