| Revision as of 04:41, 1 October 2012 view sourceValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,322 edits →IP hopper: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:42, 1 October 2012 view source MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 5 threads (older than 7d) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 11.Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 12 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 10 | |minthreadsleft = 10 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::::::"Administrative capacity" does not extend to hounding my Talk page, blocking me for editing (with no violation of policy), and threatening to block me if I edit again. That's harassment. ] (]) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | :::::::"Administrative capacity" does not extend to hounding my Talk page, blocking me for editing (with no violation of policy), and threatening to block me if I edit again. That's harassment. ] (]) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Fix please == | |||
| Because of ] complaint, the AN3 page has now been tagged with the ''24 Hours of Le Mans race cars'' category. I am not sure how to fix this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 14:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Done, thanks.--] (]) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/EW Decline == | |||
| {{Archive top|result=I have learned a great deal from this discussion, and I appreciate everyone's help in that process.--] (]) 01:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi Bbb23 | |||
| You declined my AN/EW notice on Arthur Rubin, writing "This is not the proper forum for requesting review of an administrator's actions." | |||
| Would you be so kind as to tell me where one would report disruptive editing by an admin, acting in the capacity of an editor? I have searched the help files, and other than admin recall (way too extreme), I can find nothing relevant. Many thanks – ] 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps ]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::RFCC (leading to RFC/U) is one possibility, but be sure to pay attention to the instructions about admins on that page. Also, there are other limitations as well to an RFC/U (e.g., certification). Another possibility is ] or ], depending on whether you view this as an "incident" or a broader review. Although in a sense you have discussed the problem you have with Arthur at ANEW, if you haven't done so already (I didn't look), you might want to discuss your issues on Arthur's talk page before escalating the issue. It would be better received at AN or ANI if you did so. Just to be clear, I'm not expressing ''any'' view of the merits of your complaint. My decline was procedural.--] (]) 18:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey Bbb23. Getting this matter to ANI is a reasonable thing to do. But in my opinion AN3 is a perfectly good venue for the review of edits by admins if they are not using any of their admin powers or authority. This particular case is a bit tricky (because of ] and some indirect issues of ]) so ANI could be a better choice in this one case. ] (]) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ed, as you should know, I always appreciate your views on these things. Usually, although not always, when someone reports an editor to ANEW, the objective is to block the editor. How do we do that if the editor is an admin? Would it be better to let the discussion play out at ANEW and then if the deciding admin finds that the reported admin would normally be violated, make such a determination but not issue a block? It gets a bit dicey in my view. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to handle this for the next time this happens (it's happened before). Thanks.--] (]) 20:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Admins can be blocked like anyone else for edit warring. Their status does not affect the matter. ] (]) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi, dropped in after seeing the thread on AN/I. I concur with EdJohnston; there is no technical barrier to blocking any Misplaced Pages user account, regardless of what flags (including the sysop bit) they might have. Admins can (and sometimes are) blocked for edit warring. It happens seldom because most know better, but if it does occur then WP:ANEW is a legitimate venue to handle it. ](]) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}} Ed, I think you'll find some disagreement among admins on that one. I remember at least one discussion on the issue of whether an admin may be blocked by another admin, and related to that, I believe I had an extended discussion with ] (I think - I'd have to dredge it up) who firmly felt it was not possible/made no sense.--] (]) 20:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At some point I may try to dig back into the past, or raise the issue at ], but I don't feel comfortable going out on a limb in light of your (Ed's and Ten's) comments. Unless I have some clear consensus for my view, in the future I won't decline EW reports based on that rationale.--] (]) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I hope the editor mentioned at AN3 won't mind this observation, but if you click on 'block log' you'll notice a few: {{userlinks|Arthur Rubin}}. ] (]) 20:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::My, my, all those admins doing what I said they couldn't do. :-) --] (]) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If an admin can be blocked, can they unblock themselves.] ] 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Yes, but that would be a quick desysop at Arbcom. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing is quick at Arbcom. The issue is whether an admin can be sanctioned by another admin or whether they can only be sanctioned (with some very narrow limitations) by Arbcom. This is, I believe, the issue that came up once before. Don't forget that just because an admin is blocked by another admin, unless that block is challenged on the basis that the blocking admin had no "right" to do that, then it'll just proceed without fuss.--] (]) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Admins (and I speak as one myself, having had the bit since 2005) enjoy ''no'' special privileges or protections from enforcement. Indeed, when they commit a blockworthy violation of policy, then can expect not only to be blocked, but also to face a loud (and sometimes-but-often-not justified) chorus of cries for their desysopping. Admins are not plucked out of Misplaced Pages's normal dispute resolution process for trial by private ecclesiastical courts. I'm a little bit concerned to see a new admin who is unaware of this, and more than a little concerned that you're actually ''arguing'' when you're being reminded of it. ](]) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} I've promised not to treat an admin in that fashion again based on your and Ed's comments. I would think that should be sufficient to allay your concerns. That doesn't mean that I can't continue to discuss the issue in good faith. Apparently, you believe it's obvious; I don't. I might also mention that even Ed felt that ''in this case'' the matter would be better handled at ANI. Yet, an IP reverted me at ANEW and closed the discussion at ANI. I don't intend to touch either action by the IP but only because it might be perceived to be done in bad faith, but I would have been far happier had you, Ed, or another admin done it. Finally, just so it's clear, I did not decline the ANEW report because I was cutting Arthur any kind of special slack because he was an admin. As you can see from the top of this extended discussion, I advised the reporter on where they could go to complain about Arthur's conduct. I ''still'' haven't investigated the report itself and ''still'' have no opinion on its merits.--] (]) 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't take your point. Why would you prefer an admin had closed the discussion? Why is your reason for not "touching" my actions concern over the perception, rather than appropriateness, of doing so? IPs are people too, y'know. Sometimes, we're even better informed than admins at policy. ] (]) 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec) I agree that new editors often hold a host of misconceptions about the rights and role of admins within the Misplaced Pages community, and that the limits to admin authority, powers, and rights often can be non-obvious to new Wikipedians. I remain disappointed that someone with as much experience as you have, and who recently received the admin bit, wouldn't be familiar with those limits, however. Getting piqued because a logged-out editor knew this stuff better than you did doesn't help. Accept that you made an error, be glad that it was quickly fixed, and move on. | |||
| :::::When you say 'discuss the issue in good faith', do you mean that you think admins ''should'' only be answerable to ArbCom, or that you wish to argue further that admins ''are'' only answerable to ArbCom? I'm not sure what's left to discuss.... ](]) 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They are admin boards by definition. In general, admins should close discussions, or experienced users who have demonstrated they understand the policy implications and can be trusted. It is my opinion that IPs should never close discussions. There is no accountability or independent way to determine a track record of experience. IPs enjoy the same rights to edit most articles and participate in most discussions, but shouldn't close discussions for the same reason they can't vote at RfA or participate in some other meta areas. Even semi-protection, by definition, demonstrates that IPs are given access to most, but not all opportunities to participate. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's an opinion you're certainly allowed to have, but there's no policy backing it up. Or, at least, there wasn't several years ago, which is the last time I tried hatting an ANI discussion. ] (]) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We aren't a bureaucracy and don't require a policy where common sense and previous consensus are sufficient. From my own experience, this perspective would hold up to a consensus. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree, B<sup>3</sup>. An admin unblocking him/herself would likely be construed as a severe misuse of tools and Arbcom would probably handle it by motion as at that point as a case wouldn't really be necessary (unless there were some very extenuating circumstances). Most Arbcom cases aren't quick, but there are cut and dry cases like the recent EncyclopediaPetey desysop. In my experience, the length/complexity of an Arbcom case is proportional to the extent to which content is part of the dispute ]<sup>]</sup></font> 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I hate to disagree with <s>Ed and</s> Bbb here, but admins should be dealt with in the same venue as any other editor for two reasons: 1. To insure they receive no special treatment. 2. To make sure that the public perception is that they are receiving no special treatment. If I had to block an admin, I might be inclined to go to WP:AN and ask for a review ''afterwards'', but that is a review of ME, not the blocked editor. If we treat admins any differently than non-admins when it comes to simple issues, then it will be perceived as special treatment, and it will in fact BE special treatment by virtue of simply being ''different''. On this point, I find myself very inflexible. If a patrolling/clerking admin feels that they can't be objective, that is fine as long as they recuse themselves from participating or making a final determination and defer to another who can, but the venue should be the same. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*:(I don't think you're disagreeing with Ed at all. His point was that a situation involving BLP/OR/sourcing issues might need to be dealt with at a different noticeboard because of the substance of the particular dispute and a potentially greater complexity than would be well-handled by ANEW/AN3, ''not'' that it should be handled elsewhere because an admin was involved.) ](]) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*::Doh, corrected myself, thank you. There are likely cases that are the exception to the rule, as you point out, but that might be for any editor as well. For simple cases, like I said, I feel we are obligated to use the same venue and be blind to the bit when deciding cases. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with Ten that you (Dennis) weren't disagreeing with Ed conceptually, but at the risk of repeating myself, Ed did say, "ANI could be a better choice in this one case."--] (]) 21:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Bbb23, to clarify what I was saying (or trying to say anyway) in that convo on my page, there is no point in blocking an admin for ''misuse of tools'', since blocking doesn't prevent tool usage and would thus be purely punitive. However for common or garden style abuse of editing privileges such as edit-warring, we all live in a flat space and get treated the same. If I'm reverting over and over, it is preventive to remove my ability to do so (and as mentioned, unblocking myself = desysopping) - but conversely it would be wrong to seek removal of my sysop bit for one isolated instance of warring. I'll have to reread that thread to recall what it was about. :) ] (]) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*Thanks, Franamax, I've reread our long discussion, too, and I believe you have it right about what we were talking about at the time. Obviously, if I had remembered that rather important aspect of it, I would not have declined the report at ANEW without at least further consultation with another admin. But, at the risk of continuing this discussion here, which has truly exhausted me, let's take a hypothetical. An admin edit-wars and is blocked for 24 hours as a result of an ANEW report. He edit-wars again and is blocked for 1 week as a result of an ANEW report. He edit-wars again and is indeffed (based on an ANEW report) because of his history. Putting aside the technical part (bits, etc.), how is an indef of an admin different from a desysop? Now, I realize that an indeffed admin can be unblocked, probably more easily than he can be resysopped (now there's a word), but it seems odd for all of that to be handled at ANEW and by single admins. Now, if the consensus (you, Ten, Ed, Dennis) is that this is all kosher, then I am willing to do what Ten asks, admit I was wrong about my decline and move on, but that, in a nutshell, is my outstanding dilemma. I hope that makes some sense and doesn't sound like me just ]. Despite any indication to the contrary, I would ''really'' like to close this discussion.--] (]) 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::For what my opinion is worth, I think your conduct has been totally appropriate and don't have any problem at all with your desire and willingness to have metadiscussions regarding the role of an admin and how admin transgression should be handled. It's much better if this stuff is out in the open. I also agree completely with Dennis' comment below. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From someone who's personally feeling a bit hammered at the moment, I certainly appreciate your comment. And on a more objective note, everyone's opinion in this discussion has value.--] (]) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I think what would happen is that somewhere along the way, someone would point out that edit-warring repeatedly is inconsonant with the decorum and judgement expected of admins and that a RFC/desysopping request is coming down the path, and the admin in question would make a choice between reining it in and just not getting it. But the normal disciplinary process should be indifferent to sysop status and note that an indeffed sysop can still protect pages, block vandals, etc. - which would be sure to attract attention and cause epic lulz. :) So really, the two processes would move in parallel, block and desysop. BTW, willingness to explain yourself, ability to process new information and outside views, looking in retrospect and saying that maybe you were wrong - you have nothing to worry about IMO, good show. ] (]) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Thank you for the detailed explanation and the kind words - much appreciated.--] (]) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's be honest, this isn't an issue that come up very often, as ''most'' admins don't get into this type of situation (RfA vetting does work for this), or if they are cusping on it, are smart enough to know to back down and apologize. Admins are human, too. I'm not going to rag on Bbb23 for making a call to send this one to ANI because it doesn't warrant it. I just want to make sure we all make it clear to the non-admins that we won't give special favor to admins. The perception is my biggest concern, as it's an editor retention thing, after all. I know that Bbb23 wouldn't try to give preferential treatment to an admin, or else I wouldn't have nom'ed him for admin to begin with. On the most important issue, equal treatment, we all agree and that is what matters most. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I absolutely agree that admins should be held to the same standards as everyone else. In this instance, I never intended to hold Arthur to a lesser standard. It was all based on my understanding of the procedural/practical/technical aspects of one admin blocking another admin, ''nothing'' other than that.--] (]) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*We all probably jumped to conclusions a bit too quickly here, and for whatever part I played, I'm sorry. Non-admins go nuts (understandably) when there is a perception of special treatment, and I know that wasn't your intention. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == Zscout's page == | == Zscout's page == | ||
| Line 94: | Line 43: | ||
| ::::I know my removal didn't help with the long term issue, but honestly, this is going to be an issue that will be hard to solve overnight (and with what I was told recently about going-ons with Wikimedia UK and other newly discovered paid editing) a lot of discussion will be full with anger. However, as I said, I welcome an RFC about this subject and will be happy to participate when it is up. As I told other users that came to my talk page about this, this is no hard feelings or ill wishes against anyone. Consensus has changed and went a different direction than in 2009, so I will comply. Sure I might be entrenched in a view point, but I am not stubborn. Cheers. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | ::::I know my removal didn't help with the long term issue, but honestly, this is going to be an issue that will be hard to solve overnight (and with what I was told recently about going-ons with Wikimedia UK and other newly discovered paid editing) a lot of discussion will be full with anger. However, as I said, I welcome an RFC about this subject and will be happy to participate when it is up. As I told other users that came to my talk page about this, this is no hard feelings or ill wishes against anyone. Consensus has changed and went a different direction than in 2009, so I will comply. Sure I might be entrenched in a view point, but I am not stubborn. Cheers. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I'm glad there's no hard feelings as my interest in raising the issue went went beyond you. And I thought you behaved well at AN, particularly considering some of the comments. We'll see what happens going forward. Trying to change policy is always a touchy business.--] (]) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | :::::I'm glad there's no hard feelings as my interest in raising the issue went went beyond you. And I thought you behaved well at AN, particularly considering some of the comments. We'll see what happens going forward. Trying to change policy is always a touchy business.--] (]) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, ? --] (]) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the reminder.--] (]) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to RfC == | |||
| Hi Bbb23. As you are involved in editor retention, I wanted to invite you to participate in ], particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. ]] <small>(note: not a ]!)</small> 08:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Page Curation newsletter == | |||
| Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries. | |||
| Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs ] :). We'll be holding ] sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, ] (]) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == edit summary? == | == edit summary? == | ||
Revision as of 12:42, 1 October 2012
|
|
Liberalism
I would ask that you take the time to read the talk page. Thankyou. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You need to stop edit-warring and stay on the talk pages. I'm not going to get into the merits of content disputes. You either use the dispute resolution methods available to you, or if you believe there is editor misconduct (probably unlikely), take it to the appropriate forum. You've been warned too many times now for continuing to revert on more than one article. You're lucky I chose to warn you again instead of blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I would appreciate it if you would recuse yourself from involvement any further. The other two editors reverted as much as me, and yet for whatever reason, you've only seen fit to "warn" and then "block" me. I am editing in line with wikipedia's policies (i.e., using reliable sources). And now you've threatened me with further blocks. Essentially, you've said I cannot edit the articles anymore. You've lost all objectivity here, and I'd say you'd be well advised to quit while you're ahead, before you jeopardize your adminship. In short: this doesn't look good for you. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:INVOLVED. My only involvement with you has been purely administrative. The problem you have is that you were blocked for edit-warring and you return to the project and continue to do so. This is usually viewed very dimly by admins, and the threshold for a reblock is generally lower than it would be for a first-time offender.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I would appreciate it if you would recuse yourself from involvement any further. The other two editors reverted as much as me, and yet for whatever reason, you've only seen fit to "warn" and then "block" me. I am editing in line with wikipedia's policies (i.e., using reliable sources). And now you've threatened me with further blocks. Essentially, you've said I cannot edit the articles anymore. You've lost all objectivity here, and I'd say you'd be well advised to quit while you're ahead, before you jeopardize your adminship. In short: this doesn't look good for you. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that would all be true - only I am not edit-warring.
- And I do think that hounding a specific editor with blocks and warnings and Talk page reverts, would amount to being "involved", yes I do. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- You must read the entire policy, including: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." My only involvement with you has been and continues to be in an administrative capacity.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Administrative capacity" does not extend to hounding my Talk page, blocking me for editing (with no violation of policy), and threatening to block me if I edit again. That's harassment. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Zscout's page
I see you reverted my on Zscout's page. His notice violates UP:PROMO . When a policy is violated, whatever it was that violated that policy needs to be off the page unless consensus declares otherwise. You follow ? Yes, I did add my voice to the AN board about this, but in the meantime, since he's clearly violating UP:PROMO, how about reverting your edit until consensus is declared ? "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you read the discussion, you'll see that there are editors who do not believe that Zscout's notice is a policy violation. Until the discussion concludes, the material can remain on Zscout's user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know you saw the post, but the content has been removed not only from the live userpage but also from the history. Bbb23, did you get my email by any chance? User:Zscout370 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, Zscout, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know my removal didn't help with the long term issue, but honestly, this is going to be an issue that will be hard to solve overnight (and with what I was told recently about going-ons with Wikimedia UK and other newly discovered paid editing) a lot of discussion will be full with anger. However, as I said, I welcome an RFC about this subject and will be happy to participate when it is up. As I told other users that came to my talk page about this, this is no hard feelings or ill wishes against anyone. Consensus has changed and went a different direction than in 2009, so I will comply. Sure I might be entrenched in a view point, but I am not stubborn. Cheers. User:Zscout370 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad there's no hard feelings as my interest in raising the issue went went beyond you. And I thought you behaved well at AN, particularly considering some of the comments. We'll see what happens going forward. Trying to change policy is always a touchy business.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know my removal didn't help with the long term issue, but honestly, this is going to be an issue that will be hard to solve overnight (and with what I was told recently about going-ons with Wikimedia UK and other newly discovered paid editing) a lot of discussion will be full with anger. However, as I said, I welcome an RFC about this subject and will be happy to participate when it is up. As I told other users that came to my talk page about this, this is no hard feelings or ill wishes against anyone. Consensus has changed and went a different direction than in 2009, so I will comply. Sure I might be entrenched in a view point, but I am not stubborn. Cheers. User:Zscout370 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, Zscout, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know you saw the post, but the content has been removed not only from the live userpage but also from the history. Bbb23, did you get my email by any chance? User:Zscout370 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
edit summary?
Re; Darrell Issa edit. User:Fred Birchmore reverted (my edit to get it to NPOV/accurate) citing "more info" (which in this case would be wikilinks) in previous version; addressed concerns of other editor by reinstating edit but with asked for wikilinks , AND refs. Not exactly misleading. Inclined to revert your revert, possibly adding another ref ], asking for clarification first to avoid non-productive revert war. Will check your page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your initial edit changed the status quo. Fred reverted you. You then edited the article again with the edit summary "fix refs and wikilinks". However, you actually added material to the article and instead of adding a real reference, you imbedded a bare URL, which is not appropriate. Putting aside the issue of your edit summary, this part of the Issa article has withstood a great deal of scrutiny and been much discussed in the past. Therefore, regardless of how you think it should read, and even assuming you fixed the bare URL issue, I strongly urge you to open a topic on the material you want to add/change on the article talk page pursuant to WP:BRD, among other reasons. Two editors have now reverted you. I wouldn't suggest continuing to battle in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, B; just FYI, was a little confused by your comment that I hadn't contributed on Talk: extensive justification is there, then reminded self that it was pre-registration. If you feel re-posting material already there under User:209.6.69.227 would be useful, OK. Also just FYI, although I participated extensively on Talk during your revert war of July, didn't actually edit Article then; the current changes were merely putting the ideas already on Talk for 3 months into Article space. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
B; you are misreading the source. There is no ambiguity that Fluke was "submitted"(that she was actually ever submitted is disputed) in time, in time meaning the previous Monday. Democrats never disputed that she was submitted late, just that Issa had the discretion to add her. They vehemently contested that she COULD not or SHOULD not be added. Every source and the transcript and video confirm this. The source in question says "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chaired the hearing, said the minority party had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this).", the "contest this" referring to the "to be considered", which is accurate. The WP Article takes the quote and changes it to say something that the source did not; that the Democrats "contest" the "late", not the discretionary powers of the Chair, which they do. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, B; reposted the justifications on the Talk page as you requested; have seen that you have been editing since - can I take the non-response as no response? Don't forget, the non-NPOV version of that paragraph and the rationales and justifications for improving it have been, uncontested, on the Talk page for 3 months; don't want to accept your inaction as a veto vote for inertia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I responded just now on the talk page. As you'll be able to see, I'm a bit lost as to what it is you want and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Heads up
Just wanted to make you aware of this in case someone makes an issue of this. I can't self-revert now in any case, but no EW intended. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
ATI Automation Honors
The ATI Automation Honors, 1st Annual ATI Automation Honors, 2nd Annual ATI Automation Honors wiki pages I created were speedy deleted due to copyright questions on the image and questions about company promotion. These articles are relevant given that test automation is a huge part of the overall IT industry. There are thousands of test automation tools, and people typically have a lot of questions about where to start, or about what tools the test automation community recommends. The ATI Honors provides answers to these questions, much like the Jolt Awards which also has a wiki article and the Test_automation wiki article that lists tools for people, but the ATI Honors article does it in a much more expensive, useful way, by listing useful tools by type and technology. The ATI Honors cost no money and generates no profit. Nominations come from anyone via the internet and all the results are posted via the internet. The Automation Honors has already been quoted by other people in various existing tool related articles including the Ranorex article, TestComplete article and the SoapUI article. This is what prompted me to create the ATI Automation Honors articles that other articles could reference within wikipedia. the pictures used in the article were distributed to the community by the organization that organizes the awards. But if necessary, I can either get an email from the organization, or remove the pictures entirely. For these reasons I ask that the articles be reinstated to Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkelr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- ATI Automation Honors was deleted by me for two reasons, copyright infringement and promotion. 1st Annual ATI Automation Honors Awards and 2nd Annual ATI Automation Honors Awards were deleted by User:Malik Shabazz because there was no credible claim of importance of the subject. For my part, I see no basis for restoring the article I deleted. For the other two articles, you should contact Malik on his talk page. If you don't receive satisfaction from Malik, you can go to WP:DRV. If Malik decides to restore the articles, please let me know, and I may reconsider my decision as the articles are related. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't being an admin awesome? :P MastCell 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, my poor mop is wrung out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't being an admin awesome? :P MastCell 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Please explain, and fix if possible. Thank you.
Hello. This is in regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Rhode_Island_Red_.28Result:_Stale_.2B_note.29.
You made the statement "It looks fairly clear to me that GeorgeLouis canvassed." I am sure puzzled by this. What canvassing? The only other place I mentioned the Frank L. VanderSloot page was here, which of course is OK because Frank VanderSloot is a darling of the conservatives. And I linked to his article, not to any mention or dispute about "edit warring." Your statement is a serious slur on me as an editor and seems to be stated by you as a fact, which it is not. Can you provide any information or maybe a diff that would lead you to such a conclusion? If not, I would appreciate a retraction. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I stand by my statement. I understand the part of WP:CANVASS that you're relying on, but in the context here, it would appear that your intent was to get others to support you in the dispute, not to improve the article or obtain comments from uninvolved editors. The wording of your notification was neither helpful nor neutral. The timing was suspicious. Finally, as Collect pointed out the conservativism project wasn't even listed on VanderSloot's talk page. Did you notify anyone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I did not notify anybody else. I believe my notice was very brief and very neutral. It was helpful in that it would direct people of the Conservative persuasion to go over to the article and see what was happening. Is it Canvassing to notify ONE interest group of an article that is in their bailiwick? I still don't get it: Your comment is really hurtful and damaging to me considering how long I have been editing and how careful I have been to be polite and cautious in dealing with others. Maybe you can direct me to a Policy for me to study. How can you judge my "intent"? Are you assuming Bad Faith? Thanks again. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Finally, as Collect pointed out the conservativism project wasn't even listed on VanderSloot's talk page." I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Why should I list that project when I am not a member of that group and have only stopped in there twice for assistance? Still really puzzled, I am, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only relevant guideline is canvassing, which speaks of "intention". Obviously, neither I nor anyone else can know what your intention was, but one has to judge based on the circumstances. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to apply the guideline. As for Collect's point, no one says you have to list the conservatism project; rather, it would arguably make more sense to notify a project already listed. Remember, this isn't just one item on whcih I based my statement, but several items I've already listed. Finally, it was my view in closing the report, and I commented on it because it had been brought up by others. Other editors, including admins, might feel differently. I didn't sanction you for canvassing, so it remains my view and perhaps the view of others, but not necessarily a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've outlined the key details and chronology of events on the project conservatism talk page. Doesn't leave much room for doubt that this was a violation of WP:CANVASS. Asking for an apology for calling a spade a spade? Very inappropriate. We could always move the discussion over to WP:AN or a user conduct RfC instead if need be. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, both of you should let this go. It's possible that GeorgeLouis did not leave the message on the project talk page with the intent to canvas. That's what he says. RIR thinks otherwise. GeorgeLouis was not sanctioned for canvassing, and it is unlikely he would be sanctioned if this were escalated. Generally, sanctions are only meted out in cases of repeated canvassing (see the section "How to respond to inappropriate canvassing" in the guideline). Do we really need to create more drama? I suggest you both move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've outlined the key details and chronology of events on the project conservatism talk page. Doesn't leave much room for doubt that this was a violation of WP:CANVASS. Asking for an apology for calling a spade a spade? Very inappropriate. We could always move the discussion over to WP:AN or a user conduct RfC instead if need be. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only relevant guideline is canvassing, which speaks of "intention". Obviously, neither I nor anyone else can know what your intention was, but one has to judge based on the circumstances. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to apply the guideline. As for Collect's point, no one says you have to list the conservatism project; rather, it would arguably make more sense to notify a project already listed. Remember, this isn't just one item on whcih I based my statement, but several items I've already listed. Finally, it was my view in closing the report, and I commented on it because it had been brought up by others. Other editors, including admins, might feel differently. I didn't sanction you for canvassing, so it remains my view and perhaps the view of others, but not necessarily a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Finally, as Collect pointed out the conservativism project wasn't even listed on VanderSloot's talk page." I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Why should I list that project when I am not a member of that group and have only stopped in there twice for assistance? Still really puzzled, I am, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I did not notify anybody else. I believe my notice was very brief and very neutral. It was helpful in that it would direct people of the Conservative persuasion to go over to the article and see what was happening. Is it Canvassing to notify ONE interest group of an article that is in their bailiwick? I still don't get it: Your comment is really hurtful and damaging to me considering how long I have been editing and how careful I have been to be polite and cautious in dealing with others. Maybe you can direct me to a Policy for me to study. How can you judge my "intent"? Are you assuming Bad Faith? Thanks again. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not going to "let this go." Bbb23 was totally wrong in his or her judgment — probably the best use of a post hoc ergo propter hoc rationale that I have ever seen. Rhode Island Red has already used Bbb23's (erroneous) statement that I engaged in edit warring and in canvassing by posting a diff regarding that statement in one of his arguments on another page – thereby repeating the libel. Bbb23 made that pronouncement without ever asking me for what I had to say about the matter. This smacks a lot of the kind of "trial" one gets in North Korea. Bbb23, if you will not reverse this calumny, then I would appreciate your guidance on how to appeal your action. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Your talk of 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in getting back. The purpose of the edits you questioned, as with all appropriate Misplaced Pages edits, is to deepen articles with valuable information. Most entries about films on Misplaced Pages only list a release date in the US. A link to release dates in other countries seems entirely reasonable and of great interest to the many Misplaced Pages users who reside in other countries. Such information is encyclopedic in nature and reasonable as an External Link since setting forth release dates for multiple countries in the article itself would be unwieldy. Thanks for your consideration and concern. The entries you refer to are by no means spam. Tuscanylight (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is what I wrote on your talk page:
- Your only purpose at Misplaced Pages appears to be to add external links or body cites to jabcatmovies.com. See WP:SPAMLINKS. Please explain why you are doing this and whether you have any relationship with the website, which appears to be a glorified blog. If you do not give a credible explanation, you risk being blocked for spamming.
- Your response is insufficient. It is also the exact same response you wrote at User talk:Bovineboy2008, who also reverted your edits. You haven't explained your relationship to the blog or why your only purpose here seems to be adding links to the website. Putting aside everything else, your explanation about release dates in other countries is not accurate. Generally, a film's release date is dependent on where the film is produced. Thus, if it's an American film, the important release date is in the U.S. If it's a British film, the important release date is the UK - and so on. Nor is there any basis to believe that your website would be considered a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. I'm afraid you probably leave me no choice but to block your account. I won't do it tonight in case you have something to add, but unless you have something else to offer, it will probably be soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Jerran carlin
Since you deleted the article the hoaxer who created has created a talk page Talk:Jerran carlin, can you delete it too? Thanks in advance, Heiro 15:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted it and indeffed the editor. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your username
What is the genesis of your username? It's been bugging at me for a while :) little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to politely decline to answer (as they say on questionnaires) and leave it to your imagination. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- He's a big bad bobblehead, like his 22 predecessors. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- See what one's imagination can do for one. However, I disagree, at least partly, with Anything's guess. I would like to think that I'm bigger and badder than my 22 predecessors. I've tried to learn from their mistakes. BTW, Anything, why do you have a Retired notice on your user page? You don't seem retired anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- He's a big bad bobblehead, like his 22 predecessors. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Your bra size? :D. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Sjones killing lawyers
Re your response to "the first thing we do is to kill all the lawyers" — in most jurisdictions, judges have to be lawyers, so we wouldn't have functioning courts. Either there wouldn't be justice, or it would be largely mob justice, or it would be dictates from on high, and none of those need lawyers :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Poor Sjones, my comment was largely tongue-in-cheek, but he felt the need to apologize. As for your comments about judges, have you ever watched The Good Wife? I don't think I've seen a legal show that pillories judges more than that show (not counting shows that are clearly intended to be satirical). Either none of the writers likes judges, or they think it sells ads, dunno.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Clint Eastwood editor continues to revert
Please see the new reverting added to the existing complaint here. Do you a recommendation for what to do next? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed, I've commented at ANEW. If you think I'm cutting him too much slack, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
LACMTA page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/Los_Angeles_Metro_bus_fleet
So its says that "I" may have been involved in a editing war... Why don't you tell the other useers that edited as well, I wasn't the only one!
Also what is the point of the "Talk page" if mostly no one knows about it can you put more info about that on the page, or do something for users to know about it, because even I didn't know about it before... UNTIL now. (Jonat13 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC))
- If you're referring to User:Asloge, both their conduct and yours were discussed, and Asloge was also warned, although not with a template. This all happened two weeks ago, and it looks like you haven't edited since. Asloge claims they left Misplaced Pages, and there's no evidence he has edited since, either.
- As to your question about talk pages, you're supposed to familiarize yourself a little bit with Misplaced Pages and how it works. I understand that for a new user it can be hard, but in August a Welcome notice was posted on your own talk page. Did you look at it? The very first link under "Getting started" ia a tutorial. Did you try that? Among many other basic things, it has information about article talk pages and what they're used for.
- I don't know what your objectives are now, but if you want to continue editing at Misplaced Pages, I suggest taking some time and reading the tutorial and some of the other links in that welcome notice. No one expects you to absorb all of it immediately, but if you go slowly and cautiously, things may work more smoothly for you. Even without knowing how Misplaced Pages works, you can imagine that it's not a good idea to get into a battle with another editor, and that if you do, you should probably step back and ask yourself whether there's a better way to go about improving articles here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Scientom
It seems I'm not the only editor having issues with Scientom and BRD interpretation. . little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've been kind of half paying attention to that discussion but chose not to inject my own views. Frankly, I'd prefer less discussion about policy and guidelines on editor talk pages (not that there's anything wrong with it per se) and more discussion about content on article talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Kellyanne Conway
You wrote: Please stop adding material to the Kellyanne Conway article that violates WP:BLP. You also need to learn how to cite properly in Misplaced Pages, but the biggest problem is that the material is negative and controversial in its impact on Todd Akin. I'm going to revert your edit (again). If you want to reinsert the material, or some variation of it, start a topic on the article talk page to discuss it. Don't put it back in the article unless there's a consensus that it doesn't violate policy and is otherwise appropriate for inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect,
- this page is filled with poor citations.
- I have modified my edit to address your concern re: Todd Akin by removing his identity from the page. If you are objecting to the "negative" information about Ms. Conway, I would suggest that, for example, the entire criticism section in the Misplaced Pages Frank Luntz article be removed.
- This information is not only germane, but was voluntarily offered in an interview in a non-hostile venue. When a political consultant compares her client to David Koresh, that is a significant fact by any biographical or professional standard. The material may reflect negatively on Ms. Conway, but it is not controversial, since there is no controversy about the actual fact of the statement.
- Furthermore, the entire article has been allowed to stand unedited until now although it was cited as being "written like an advertisement."
- Finally, with all due respect, Ms. Conway is a public figure who frequently appears in the media as a political consultant and analyst. Restraining accurate comments about a public figure is, again with respect, a form of Wiki-censorship.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Misplaced Pages. My disagreement in no way suggests that your work here is not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvcop (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
IP hopper
Thanks for this semi-protection. The article has no interest to me, but I've started keeping track of the editor, who keeps changing IPs. If they were never disruptive they wouldn't be noticed. Just the fact that they are (deliberately or not) "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors" by spreading their contribution history over numerous accounts creates a problem and violates our basic policy, which requires (with only a few exceptions) that we edit using only one account. One of the main purposes of registration is to avoid confusion, and this editor is doing creating it. Here's their sock category: