| Revision as of 04:57, 21 July 2017 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,956 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 41) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:48, 22 January 2025 view source Weatherextremes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,512 edits →Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | {{NOINDEX}} | ||
| <!-- {{Wikibreak|message=On vacation from October 15 to November 1. I'll be on-wiki much less than usual and possibly not at all. Certainly, don't expect a prompt response to any questions or requests.}} --> | |||
| <!-- {{Retired|date=June 22, 2020,|reason=due to ArbCom. I may edit once in a great while}} --> | |||
| <!--*After a protracted absence, I returned in the spring of this year, although I'm not sure exactly why. I'm still deeply disturbed by the governance at Misplaced Pages and the WMF, and I doubt that will ever change. I could say more but don't think it's appropriate. --> | |||
| <!-- {{Busy|I|because of RL constraints and may not be on-wiki as much as usual.}} --> | |||
| <!-- {{wikibreak|message=I'll be unavailable for a few days.}} --> | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 64 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 10 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <table class="messagebox standard-talk"> | |||
| <tr><td>] | |||
| <td align="left" width="100%"> | |||
| *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. | |||
| </table> | |||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == Operaatio Arktis == | |||
| ==Why?!== | |||
| Please can you send me the draft text from the ] page that was deleted yesterday? I would like to edit and add to it before reposting ] (]) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There was no reason to delete ] 4 times. Bring it back ''NOW'' or I'm suing you! ] 19:37, 29 June 2017 (EDT) | |||
| :I'm willing to move it to draft space if that's what you mean. Let me know.--] (]) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning ] (]) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == {{U|Accopulocrat}} sock == | |||
| :::Here it is: ]. You should use ] to develop it into an article. Good luck.--] (]) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Great, thanks! ] (]) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I found a static IPsock of this guy that has edited since July 4 without a block - what general block duration would you advise? Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|GeneralizationsAreBad}} A week or 10 days, whichever you prefer.--] (]) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Done}} - thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also nabbed {{user2|107.77.165.1}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Knock yourself out. It's always a bit harder for me to block IPs.--] (]) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2017 == | |||
| Hi mate, how do you deal with guys who put Sockpuppet tags on userpages without evidence? --] (]) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if Bbb knows this SPI but I'm guessing {{U|Ponyo}}'s come across this one before, I just looked at a couple of places and couldn't find the link though. —]''']''' 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which SPI? anyways thanks for removing the tags.. --] (]) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::], Saqib. Your tagger is most likely from there. I was wrong, Bbb23 has blocked this farm too. —]''']''' 08:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. Thanks, folks.--] (]) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just blocked ].--]<sup>]</sup> 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == New user HeyMate29 == | |||
| Hi there; I have found a newly-created page ], which is a very large page for a newbie to have created. Its content seems rather familiar; investigating my deleted contribs I have turned up ]. The latter was created by {{noping|BlobBlob98}} who you blocked in March 2017 as a sock of {{noping|Marquis de la Eirron}}, and (this one included) under ]. A number of their deleted edits were to . | |||
| ] was created yesterday by {{noping|HeyMate29}}, an account which was created the previous day: 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC). Their very first edit was to create {{cl|Zambian politicians convicted of crimes}}, a page which has not previously existed, but whose name fits the pattern of "Category:Fooian politicians convicted of crimes". Similarly for . | |||
| Do you have an opinion on this new user? --] 🌹 (]) 07:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Redrose64}} Yup: {{confirmed}}, blocked, and tagged. Thanks.--] (]) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ty}} --] 🌹 (]) 09:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just revoked talk page access from this range due to one of the IP's leaving a . Just wanted to let you know since you're the blocking checkuser. Cheers -- ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Oshwah}} Gosh, if he prevails at court, I'll have only $9B left. Globally locked several minutes after you revoked Talk page access. It's probably a nice sunny day where they are. Why can't they just go '''outside''' and play?--] (]) 18:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a lot of $ - wish I had $10B to play with (lol)! Someone needs to invent Misplaced Pages NLT insurance for us poor folk! Cool deal; I figured you wouldn't care but I wanted to leave you a message and give you a heads-up nonetheless, especially given that the block is a checkuser block. I obviously try not to touch those unless it's needed, and even so - I let them know ;-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Right off a block, on ANI == | |||
| Would you mind taking a look at ] since the editor under discussion is fresh off a block you issued? Thanks. ] <small>(])</small> 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Original Research Query == | |||
| Hi, can you please provide guidance on the ] page. I am alleging that there is clear OR being done but author disagrees. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I don't know why you're asking me (or at least one other administrator).--] (]) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi again. The user on the page agreed to delete the content if it was deemed OR. Since it now has been deemed as such (on the No Original Research Noticeboard), Could you please allow me to modify the page and to merge it to a legitimate one? Right now the page is blocked from any modifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard ] (]) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see one editor's opinion at the noticeboard as "deemed OR". If the other edit warrior, {{U|Jeine091}}, now accepts your wish to modify the article, I will unprotect it.--] (]) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We now have 2 additional editors on the Talk part of the article's page who are saying it is also OR. What more do we need to merge or delete the page? ] (]) 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Sherzod Abduvaitov == | |||
| == Your deletion of comments to unblock request == | |||
| Hi there! Thank you for reporting ]. He has created dozens of accounts and just will not stop. See ] for our local discussion. And ] is huge! Despite repeated warnings to stop creating new accounts, he has continued to do so. Local blocks have proven ineffective in addressing this issue. Is there any way to prevent this individual from creating new accounts? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You again deleted my comment about the unblock request for ] on their talkpage. As ] clearly and simply states that ''Any user may comment on an unblock request'', I believe there was no reason to remove my comment. As the comment I made is allowable under ] (as any user may comment on an unblock request), and was not disruptive, but was in all good faith criticism of the block, then there is no basis for removal. You have mistaken criticism for disruption, however recall that editors are free to criticize administrator action. To try and resolve this though, rather than reverting you deletion (which I believe I have every right to do) can you please explain why you didn't note that it wasn't a slam dunk in either the block log or the user page. Or why you didn't make an entry at all in ]? Thanks! ] (]) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Sometimes there are ways, edit filters and IP blocks, but I can't help you with that.--] (]) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't normally tutor users on how CheckUsers do their work, but with the hope that you'll understand my actions better and put these issues to rest, I'll make an exception. Generally, when there's a suspected sock, someone opens or reopens an SPI, and the report is evaluated. If I decide a CU is warranted, I run a check and post my findings. Those findings are along a spectrum of more certain to less certain. For example, the most certain is {{tallyho}}, then slightly less to {{confirmed}}, less to {{likely}}, and so on down to {{unrelated}}. If I believe a block is warranted, I block and it's my decision whether to make it a checkuseraccount block. The finding doesn't have to be confirmed or even likely for me to do so. If the blocked account is tagged (not all socks should be tagged, but that's a separate topic), the tag would normally reflect my finding. Thus, I wouldn't normally tag a sock as CU-confirmed unless my finding was confirmed or tallyho, although there are occasionally exceptions. | |||
| :Once a master has a case, not all socks go through the SPI process. I and all CheckUsers can block a sock outside of the SPI ''and'' not record it at the SPI. It's standard practice. We do it all the time. We may also choose to tag or not at our discretion. However, because such blocks have no SPI finding, unless the tag is very clear, other editors won't necessarily know the degree of certainty, but ''no one'' marks that in the block log. | |||
| :My comment at Moltenflesh's Talk page was intended to let the user know that they might be unblocked and to let other CheckUsers know that I would like their input before I make a final decision. Although casually couched ("slam dunk"), the purpose was to ''help'' the user. It's rare for me to comment on a sock-blocked Talk page, but in this case I thought it would be constructive. | |||
| :I didn't remove your comment because it was critical of me. I removed it because it betrayed your ignorance (no offense) of how the whole process works and because it distracted from the process of re-evaluating my block. I hope that addresses your concerns.--] (]) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the explanation and the transparency. I see now what you were doing, and I apologize for getting in the way of it. I'll try and avoid shooting first in the future. ] (]) 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarify about declining speedy deletion == | |||
| == Do you have trouble on Commons? == | |||
| with due respect, I would like to know the reason of declining G11 to my recent tags. I had put those tags after careful reading the article and gone through references. Plz clarify the reason so that i can improve in future. Thank you 🙏 ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| We have a strange request . Thanks for taking a peek. --] '''<sup>]</sup>''' 00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:If you're going to ask me about why I removed a tag from an article, please mention the article, which is ]. The references have nothing to do with ]. What matters is the language, and although it's a poorly written, poorly sourced article, the language is not unduly promotional.--] (]) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks ] (]) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought so. But before I block an IP that could be a fellow sysop, I rather ask. Had a feeling you didn't move to Botswana. Thanks for your fast reply! ] --] '''<sup>]</sup>''' 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--] (]) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is cyberbot the same as ? —]''']''' 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I |
::::I can understand the message in your reply. Thank you for response . It helped. ] (]) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == If you could please permanently block my account that would be great. == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You guys are now attacking me because I reported what I thought wrong, now I know they have very specific criterias for what is vandalism, and that they don't remove peoples talk messages even if they are vandalism. I saw I was in the wrong and I said this on the thing, I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages, and now I know better thanks to you guys. The only other thing I did was correct someone who was saying he didn't edit a closed AfD, which I discovered he did I told him this. Now I also know that is not a big deal either. But now you guys are insulting me. "SubhanAllah" means "Oh how perfect is God" or "All glory is due to God", and as Muslims we say this when we are surprised or shocked or something bad happens. I don't see the issue with saying this, or maybe there's a rule against that too. I also already said I didn't edit for months because I have other things to do. I just edit here sometimes if I want to correct something or fix something. If one of you guys could please permanently block my account that would be great, since you guys want to come after me now, and I don't want to be an editor here anymore. I don't have time to be here all the time you get me ] (]) 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt but to do that I need your agreement or checkuserblock removed. What are your thoughts, please? ] (]) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymmore, just stop editing.--] (]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::NP and thx for looking at the situation. ] (]) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Request == | ||
| @], nice to meet you, I am Nelson. I would like to request you to help remove and revdel the parts about what I am doing in real life, because Janessian somehow got clues of what I did and I never revealed it to him. I hope to have the content related to my personal stuff taken down and wish that it will truly be the end of the episode because I certainty do not want to be dragged into the mud for the matter itself (much less the legal part), which had been affecting me for the past few days. ] (]) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can I trouble you to have a look at the recent unblock request? Their claims to not have socked at all are a bit humorous if I can say so. ] (]) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|RickinBaltimore}} Sure. I revoked Talk page access. We have better ways of spending our time.--] (]) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :@], and I do not wish to be involved with this issue as much as I want to speak up. I just hope for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. ] (]) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Cooper edits == | |||
| ::Nelson, assuming you're talking about ], such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at ] to have that done.--] (]) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::by the way, thank you for the help you rendered throughout this process. It is really a painful case going on here, and I sincerely hope it can end and I also wish to move on, @]. ] (]) 11:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|NelsonLee20042020}} I will interject here and say: The information that particular user has about you is because that information is literally at the top of your talk page. You told another separate user publicly about what you were doing in real life and he's seen it there most likely. Perhaps in the future be a bit more cautious posting details about your personal life online. But I wouldn't worry about it anyway because it's extremely vague, but be aware of this going forward. ] (]) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| All the information I cited was from the primary source. You may not have agreed with it but it's indisputible that Fletcher accuses Huff of deliberately sabotaging the hearings, and that Rymer went out of her way to ridicule Fletcher. All the other incidents (The fact that Roger Lang admitted the knife could have been different, the fact that the shoes weren't unique) were all matters of record. Making mention of it is entirely fair; declaring it impermissible seems a bit like a cowardly dodge unless there's something I'm missing <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :] prohibits an editor from using primary sources that require ''interpretation''. Legal decisions fall into that category. Therefore, a reliable secondary source that interprets the decision must be used.--] (]) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverted warning == | |||
| ==Incivility from ]== | |||
| Hi. I seem to having some difficulty with a user that I see you have . | |||
| Hi Bbb23. I saw that you {{diff2|1270860210|reverted a warning}} I left to a user about spamming on their talk page. Can you tell me what you found objectionable about it? I've left nearly identical warnings dozens of times before, but this is the first time anyone has taken issue with it. Thanks. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My discussion with him is , though Freshacconci the last message, with the edit summary: | |||
| :Two things. First, the warning was stale, meaning the user had posted the promotional material ''before'' I blocked them. Second, you cannot phrase a warning the way you did: "If you post ] to this page again, even just once more, you will lose access to it as well." You could, I suppose, saying something like "you may lose access to it as well". Even the first part of your warning was a bit over-the-top: "While your account is blocked, the only acceptable use of this page is to appeal your block in the manner described above." That's not quite true. The user is allowed some latitude to discuss their block without making an unblock request. As an admin, I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps.--] (]) 19:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior == | |||
| '''''"'Please learn these policies if you wish to continue editing here'? Who are you? Fuck you."''''' | |||
| Hello @], could you please help with @]? Apart from calling me names (loser etc) they insist edit warring on the ] weatherbox. It's been going on forever. Maybe months. They keep ignoring friendly requests (I ve left messages on their talk page warning them etc) and even other editors have pointed out the chronic non constructive behavior. Here a few difs , , . ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If you could inform/remind him of ], it would be appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 23:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:It looks to me like you should take this to ], but it won't look good for you that you are calling the other user's edits "vandalism".--] (]) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Great thank you! I will take your advice on the strong wording ] (]) 16:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 22 January 2025
Operaatio Arktis
Please can you send me the draft text from the Operaatio Arktis page that was deleted yesterday? I would like to edit and add to it before reposting Thisredrock (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm willing to move it to draft space if that's what you mean. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning Thisredrock (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here it is: Draft:Operaatio Arktis. You should use WP:AFC to develop it into an article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Thisredrock (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here it is: Draft:Operaatio Arktis. You should use WP:AFC to develop it into an article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning Thisredrock (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Sherzod Abduvaitov
Hi there! Thank you for reporting this user. He has created dozens of accounts and just will not stop. See uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar forumi#Abduvaitov_Sherzod for our local discussion. And this list is huge! Despite repeated warnings to stop creating new accounts, he has continued to do so. Local blocks have proven ineffective in addressing this issue. Is there any way to prevent this individual from creating new accounts? Nataev 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are ways, edit filters and IP blocks, but I can't help you with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Clarify about declining speedy deletion
with due respect, I would like to know the reason of declining G11 to my recent tags. I had put those tags after careful reading the article and gone through references. Plz clarify the reason so that i can improve in future. Thank you 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're going to ask me about why I removed a tag from an article, please mention the article, which is Universal Engineering & Science College. The references have nothing to do with WP:G11. What matters is the language, and although it's a poorly written, poorly sourced article, the language is not unduly promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can understand the message in your reply. Thank you for response . It helped. Rahmatula786 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If you could please permanently block my account that would be great.
You guys are now attacking me because I reported what I thought wrong, now I know they have very specific criterias for what is vandalism, and that they don't remove peoples talk messages even if they are vandalism. I saw I was in the wrong and I said this on the thing, I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages, and now I know better thanks to you guys. The only other thing I did was correct someone who was saying he didn't edit a closed AfD, which I discovered he did I told him this. Now I also know that is not a big deal either. But now you guys are insulting me. "SubhanAllah" means "Oh how perfect is God" or "All glory is due to God", and as Muslims we say this when we are surprised or shocked or something bad happens. I don't see the issue with saying this, or maybe there's a rule against that too. I also already said I didn't edit for months because I have other things to do. I just edit here sometimes if I want to correct something or fix something. If one of you guys could please permanently block my account that would be great, since you guys want to come after me now, and I don't want to be an editor here anymore. I don't have time to be here all the time you get me TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymmore, just stop editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Request
@Bbb23, nice to meet you, I am Nelson. I would like to request you to help remove and revdel the parts about what I am doing in real life, because Janessian somehow got clues of what I did and I never revealed it to him. I hope to have the content related to my personal stuff taken down and wish that it will truly be the end of the episode because I certainty do not want to be dragged into the mud for the matter itself (much less the legal part), which had been affecting me for the past few days. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bbb23, and I do not wish to be involved with this issue as much as I want to speak up. I just hope for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nelson, assuming you're talking about WP:OUTING, such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at WP:OS to have that done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- by the way, thank you for the help you rendered throughout this process. It is really a painful case going on here, and I sincerely hope it can end and I also wish to move on, @Bbb23. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nelson, assuming you're talking about WP:OUTING, such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at WP:OS to have that done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020: I will interject here and say: The information that particular user has about you is because that information is literally at the top of your talk page. You told another separate user publicly about what you were doing in real life and he's seen it there most likely. Perhaps in the future be a bit more cautious posting details about your personal life online. But I wouldn't worry about it anyway because it's extremely vague, but be aware of this going forward. Inexpiable (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Reverted warning
Hi Bbb23. I saw that you reverted a warning I left to a user about spamming on their talk page. Can you tell me what you found objectionable about it? I've left nearly identical warnings dozens of times before, but this is the first time anyone has taken issue with it. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two things. First, the warning was stale, meaning the user had posted the promotional material before I blocked them. Second, you cannot phrase a warning the way you did: "If you post promotional content to this page again, even just once more, you will lose access to it as well." You could, I suppose, saying something like "you may lose access to it as well". Even the first part of your warning was a bit over-the-top: "While your account is blocked, the only acceptable use of this page is to appeal your block in the manner described above." That's not quite true. The user is allowed some latitude to discuss their block without making an unblock request. As an admin, I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior
Hello @Bbb23, could you please help with @Ileagae? Apart from calling me names (loser etc) they insist edit warring on the Athens weatherbox. It's been going on forever. Maybe months. They keep ignoring friendly requests (I ve left messages on their talk page warning them etc) and even other editors have pointed out the chronic non constructive behavior. Here a few difs , , . Weatherextremes (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you should take this to WP:ANI, but it won't look good for you that you are calling the other user's edits "vandalism".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great thank you! I will take your advice on the strong wording Weatherextremes (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)