User talk:Bbb23

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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.

I hope you had a good vacation! Ryan Vesey 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's so nice of you to notice and to post here, Ryan. Vacation was great. I even forced myself not to pay any attention to Wikipedia the entire time. Now I'm playing catch-up (slowly). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bbb. Remember me? You don't bring me flowers anymore... Drmies (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least I've heard of Neil Diamond. Things seemed more convivial pre-adminship.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it getting to you already? ;) Hope you had a nice vacation! It's almost over here: classes start next week. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Bbb23, now that you are an admin, you are one of the bad buys. You did go out and buy a black hat, right? Makes it easier for the contrarians to spot you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supposed to wear black before or after Labor Day? Fashion, just like most popular music, eludes me. Yeah, I'm now "vile" (see below). Drmies, I had a great vacation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating I'm nominating Black Swan (film) for GA and since there are four contributors with 50 or more edits in the history (User:Koavf, User:Bbb23, User:Fsm83, and User:Erik), I figured I would give a generic heads-up on these talk pages to let you know. I don't necessarily know how nominating and apportioning responsibility goes out for these sorts of things, but for what it's worth, I'll follow the review and make any amendments that the reviewer finds necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior of yours towards Joan Gerber's memory is insulting and vile. You ask for better sources, do you even think about the possibility that this is an insult to her family. It is of no importance whether you suffer from some mental illness, which causes you to insist that those who have passed away are alive, it is untrue, i have talked about it with Rob Paulsen, Tress MacNeille, Frank Welker, Dave Sebastian Williams, Beau Weaver, Mark Evanier and a relative of hers, all of whom knew her very well and they have confirmed this.

Sorry that it's up to me to tell you this but do not vandalise her page anymore.

By the way, you insist on a better source to confirm her death, well let's first have a better source to confirm she is alive! (Did you hear that? That was your jaw hitting the floor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no one is claiming someone is alive if the delete the date of death without proper sourcing. If anything, claiming someone has died without sourcing is incredibly damaging if they haven't died, as distant friends may get the wrong information. You have it backwards here. Unless there is a source to demonstrate a person has died, most people would think it is morally wrong to add that information. That you know is meaningless here, as we have no idea who you are. You could be someone who is trying to harm them by making a false claim, and we would have no idea. I doubt this is the case and trust your faith here, but similar things have happened with biographies here before and the fact remains we can't take your word for it. Read WP:OR for the reasons. The requirement to provide sources for a death is designed solely to protect the individual, a fact that seems lost on you. Bbb23 acted 100% properly when he reverted the date of death out of the article because it was not sourced, and policy is clear on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Bbb23 did was remove a source of her death which was accurate (tributes.com - born July 29, 1935 in Detroit Michigan, not Joan Gerber?) and lead her distant friends to again receive wrong information. The fact that you do not even bother to question, but insist that yours truly wants to harm her is harsh, but of no importance. Your argument simply does not work. If you want an article from the la times, you have a long time to wait, Gerber was a terrific person and one heck of an actress, but not that known outside of the animation industry. If you want a more reliable source; listen to Rob Paulsen's podcast with Bill Farmer at the 18.00 min. he mentions this.

The fact, that you think that want to mislead people and do not consider that you are misleading them, shows exactly how much you want to protect this individual. This will be given as an example of Wikipedia's incompetence one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You might actually persuade someone if you weren't under some false sense of superiority. You want to come here and try to bully a bunch of volunteers, which makes it pretty laughable, since we try to treat everyone as equals here, so you get judged by your deeds and attitude here. If you had tried a different tact, perhaps other would be more inclined to go out of there way to assist you. I'm sure that attitude works great for you in the real world, too. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How are you so sure you are correct? What makes you think that an anonymous person at Tributes.com has correctly identified this person as deceased? Tributes.com claims it obtained this information from the Social Security Death Index. Yet there is no information about the death of Joan Gerber born 1935 in the online Index either by last name or birth date. You should never run the risk of prematurely declaring someone dead without checking and cross-checking any death-related information especially if the person is relatively obscure and information about her is hard to find. In fact contrary to your assertion that This will be given as an example of Wikipedia's incompetence one day., this is exactly an example of due care and diligence that any organisation dealing with information is supposed to exercise, especially prior to declaring someone dead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." --Mark Twain

Radiohist, we do not want Joan Gerber or anyone else to have exaggerated rumors of death propagated by Wikipedia. That is why our policies require proper sourcing before we say anyone has died. LadyofShalott 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for showing any sense of superiority whatsoever and have never wanted to bully anybody. Think we should end this discussion for good, as this was not a good idea. Wow, Denis you sure can make someone feel as guilty as Hitler. Dr. K, try Joanelllen and by the way made a mistake, on the Talkin Toons podcast with Bill Farmer, Rob Paulsen mentions it exactly at the 16.31 min. Forgive me. Realise that this makes me look in your eyes as an immoral monster, but give you my word (which is worth very little right now) am not such a person. Thought that i knew what was best, but did not do what was best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did unsuccessfully try a search using the string "Joanellen", but really the safest bet is to search by the last name "Gerber". There are multiple hits for "Gerber, Joan" but none fits the birthday of the Wikipedia entry. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: Giovanni has Italian & croatian citizenships. It is unfair (and not "wikipedian") not to pinpoint this reality in the initial information about this shooter, who is an ethnic Italian of Istria. Anyway, do as you want. I will not go against your decision in future with my IP. But I am going to be one more of those who think that wikipedia is in the hands of nationalistic & political groups, like this croatian group.......groups that are slowly damaging the credibility & impartiality of this encyclopedia.John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.105.216 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your avoiding a block for edit-warring has simply caused me to semi-protect the article. I suggest you learn to edit here properly or take your agenda somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look a while back, but it seems like it was expanded quite a bit since then. I see some WP:WEIGHT issues and probably some WP:RS as well. I'll take a closer look. Siawase (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick removal of some of the most blatant stuff, but I think it needs a more thorough cleanup/copyediting. Siawase (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered a mild disagreement with your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Teachingyeshua reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result:Indefinite ). I was about to decline it block for a short period, actually. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This. Not many participating, trying to get a user to understand that being rude isn't justifiable under any circumstance, but he is getting worse and perhaps needs a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it tomorrow. I'm already late for a dinner engagement and am going to get yelled at.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I will just ask another. Have fun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got to it faster than I thought I would as I was up in the middle of the night unable to sleep. No rest for the wicked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dont blindly revert. Te summary talk of reverting the lead the rst was not mentioend why. At any rate per LEAD the lead should reflect the content of the article and if the allegation are mentioned that should be too. (note- i dont know about the issue, just reflecting the article)Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I did not "blindly revert". Please read WP:BLPCRIME about the issues with the Hughes article generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up in case you haven't seen this post. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tvoz, I've commented at BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of the issues there. Hope it's enough. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your warning is noted, but may I asked where I focused on the contributor and not the contribution? I wasn't aware I had done so, and it would be useful if it was pointed out where I did. Thanks, CMD (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CMD, my comment was somewhat generic and forward-going. I see no instance of your being disrespectful on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Cheers, CMD (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi i want to remind you about the proposal of a banner on the article, despite you didn't disapprove it, my edit was reversed when i added the picture along with its reference by saying absolutely no approval on talk page, maybe because you said I'll let others comment on the proposal before editing the article, since then no one has objected to it. Can it be added now along with the references? Kingroyos (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus was against inclusion of the banner, and nothing has changed since. The statement you are referring to has to do with the wording of the section, not whether to include the banner.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Ok then Kingroyos (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education document and Preston University. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've been dealing with "Triomio reported by Martinvl" and now also with "Martinvl reported by IP". I'm currently monitoring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto that also involves Triomio and Martinvl. so I wasn't really surprised to see IP 82.132.249.192 defend Triomio yesterday and now a similar IP 82.132.249.199 pops up to report Martinvl in return. IP range and geolocation suggest that these IPs are almost certainly the same user so I'm tempted to add them to the list of possible socks in that SPI. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt that the two IPs are the same individual; who that individual is I have no idea. If you believe the individual is connected to the SPI report, then by all means add them. I don't know anything about DeFacto or Canepa, but you might want to take a look at the Triomio's English (on his Talk page) and the IPs' English (less to go on with them). There may not be enough to draw any conclusions, but I suspect English is not Trimoio's maternal language, whereas it is for the IPs. Not a strong suspicion, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll add the IPs to the report, after all Triomio has been actively editing that IBAN page so there is a common denominator. De728631 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say that my "Basis for protection request is flawed" is a little harsh don't you think? While you may be right in not protecting it. As the Potential V.P. Of the United States, I feel that a request to protect it was not "flawed" or irrational. Thanks for your consideration. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I apologize. It was flawed, but I didn't need to say so, at least not without explaining why. I've removed the sentence from my decline. However, for your benefit here, normally one asks for protection of an article because of current and ongoing problems with the article, not because of possible problems in the future. Your statement that it needed full protection was based on Ryan's future possible status. Even if you had said it was based on him being announced as Romney's running mate, that wouldn't have helped. In the future, when you make a request, state your reason as something that is happening to the article now and in the recent past. Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He meant that we do not protect articles preemtively. In this case, protection of any sort will probably stop more improvements than vandalism. Protection can be considered once vandalism starts occurring. On a related note, Bbb23, do you know if pending changes will be used pre-emtively? Ryan Vesey 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to pay as little attention to pending changes as I can, Ryan, although I suppose I will be forced to pay more attention once it's implemented (again).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if only an Admin can close this discussion[1] I was going to close it because I don't foresee it coming out to a consensus to unban the banned editor.Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David, it's premature to close the discussion until a consensus is declared.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but just for my knowledge how many oppose votes/what would be considered a consensus? and even though it is to early, would it be out of line for a non admin to close the discussion? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is built not on numbers but on the depth of the arguments. As a non-admin, you always have to be careful when closing a discussion at AN or ANI. Very few have the experience and confidence to do it. In this instance, I think it would be best to let an admin handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, for explaining it. I will leave it to a Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently created a extra sandbox would you mind helping me with deleting it [[2]] also could you explain to me how to get my talk to archive automatically. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sandbox for you. As for automatic archiving, it sort of depends on how you want it to archive. I'm not an expert on this, either, so my suggestion is you read about it and decide what you'd like. Then, if you can't figure out how to do it, try contacting User:Bearian, a very knowledgeable fellow about this sort of thing, and I'm sure he'll help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how outright deletion of rather lengthy point-by-point comments at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement like you did here is conducive to editing? Timbouctou (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't have the right to refactor Sunil's comments simply because you think it's a better approach to rebutting them, particularly when they asked you not to already. You can make whatever appropriate comments you like but separately from Sunil's.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Sunil had a problem with it he should have edited the discussion and moved my comments down, not simply deleted them. And you shouldn't have assisted him in deleting comments he does not like by confirming his censorship and deleting them again. Not to mention his weird idea of voting on the style that the article should be written in. Timbouctou (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the burden was on you to move your comments, which I see you've done - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't realised IMDb was not an acceptable source, so Thank You for correcting the citation I had added; I'm not very good at this sort of thing and hopefully you'll bear with me :-). I did find another reference where SL is shown as scriptwriter for 'Murder In Mind' (http://www.startrader.co.uk/Action%20TV/guide2000/murdermind.htm) but don't know if it can be used as it's just one of the programmes, or if it's an acceptable source?

I know the page is protected but didn't feel the citations I was including were in anyway applicable to the 'disputed' section, so guessed it was okay to update them.

Would you mind giving me a little more advice re: the 'Allegations' section on the page, please? I have put a comment on the Talk page, trying to explain why I did the initial deletion; I only deleted it once and since then have only added citations I have managed to find.

Would it be reasonable to ask for the section under discussion to be 'parked' until other sources can be found? Is there a length of time which would be considered reasonable for other references backing up the Guardian piece to be supplied? Or will it just be left as it is? I did briefly try to see if I could find any other references but any I came across were blogs - I have twigged to blogs not being reliable sources, so I am learning, albeit slowly :-)

I hope you don't mind me posting this on your Talk page; I wasn't sure where else to put it. Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have too many things going on right this moment and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. It was fine for you to come here. I'll get back to you with a better response as soon as I can. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, not a problem. I do appreciate everyone has a life and do all this on a voluntary basis with many demands on their time :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article and left a comment on the Talk page. If you still feel that the allegation material is inappropriate, you might raise it at WP:BLPN. As for the startrader reference, I don't think that's a reliable source. It strikes me as a personal website without the usual fact-checking we expect from reliable sources. If you want to pursue that issue, you can pass it by WP:RSN and ask other editors' opinions. I hope that helps a little. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, even if I can't get to them right away.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. Please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Shadow's other posts, I would say this one is pretty much on the same level. I wouldn't fret about it, and I wouldn't let yourself be goaded. If you want to respond, susbtantively not personally, fine; or you can just leave it alone. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I though am wondering of this is FerreFour? Sport and politics (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing just how speedily HeCameFromTheShadows has reacted. When I have had no interactions with HeCameFromTheShadows except for that one response they made to my input on the 2012 Olympics Controversy Talk Page. Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're starting to annoy me. I found your posts when I checked your contributions to see if you were online, something I do every time for editors I respond to, as I'm sure others do to. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to keep repeating my response each time I find this user talking about me behind my back, so here's a link to what I said when he said this exact same thing to someone else the first time [3]. I fail to see what I've done for this editor to be running around calling a perfectly reasonable post, "suspicious". HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, S&P came here in good faith to ask me a question. We discussed it. Shadows responded, which is fine, but I see no point in continuing the discussion. So, no more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this comment about? -- Avanu (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain something. Your comment comes across as insulting. It implies that I simply want to disrespect the rules and guidelines of the process of dispute resolution there. If you will actually look at the sequence of events for that 'dispute', you will see that I took action to correct this problem after AndyTheGrump brought it up on his User Talk page. I reverted the 'See Also' links and left an explanation that IjonTichy needed to avoid a link farm, and I *also* took the question to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, in an attempt to get more editors involved in the debate, so I wouldn't have to become involved myself. In addition, I have been engaging IjonTichy in discussion at the The Zeitgeist Movement Talk page and while he hasn't agreed with my points yet, he has avoided edit warring, and has been willing to discuss. After asking whether this is a genuine problem for DRN to handle, the first response I get from you is a very offputting and unhelpful one. Meanwhile an editor who actually seems focused on solving this, OpenFuture, responded with a thoughtful reply that was on target and helpful. While this is somewhat of a content dispute, it is not simply going to be as cut and dry as you might like, and sometimes we need to ensure that people have left their personalities at the door. OpenFuture and Ebe123 clearly have lost some of their patience in dealing with IjonTichy and I was working to get them focused on the issues at hand. How about in the future, rather than taking an approach that is very offputting, you take a moment to look past the immediate situation and work for actual resolution of disputes, rather than creating new ones? -- Avanu (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a very polite comment and had nothing to do with what preceded the DRN topic or anything collateral to it. I was simply trying to get editors to stay on content topic as the board's rules ask. OpenFuture's comment was NOT helpful, not here or on the article's Talk page, to the extent he talks about Ijon not listening (even if OF is right). The substance of OF's comment was fine, and he should have left it at that. In any event, another admin has correctly asked that the whole thing at DRN be closed because, in his view (and in mine), the issue is fairly cut and dried. More time and more energy have been spent on this article than it even comes close to deserving, and that is largely Ijon's fault, but DRN is just not the place to air it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct there. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you only blocked one of the parties on involved on the dispute on Rumi, but did not take any action against User:Barayev who had also violated WP:Editwar, appears to be a WP:SPA with a few edits (55 edits, registered last week, but has expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia codes etc, all red flags) in a topical area that has seen many banned nationalist users resurrecting under new names. He is also refusing mediation, and insisting on using questionable nationalistic WP:Fringe sources which contradict mainstream academic accounts on this subject. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that Barayev stopped editing the article. Procedurally, Barayev was in a similar position to Khodabandeh except he had not been warned of edit-warring (a fairly important requirement). Arguably, Khodabandeh had not been warned, either, but that's because of his peculiar wish to keep his Talk page fully protected. In any event, despite repeated attempts by my to get Khodabandeh to understand that edit-warring wasn't permissible even if everything he said about the content and the situation were true, he reverted yet again.

Since that time, two editors have "restored" the article to "stable" versions, you being the second. The first, Gabriel Stijena, is a newer editor than Barayev and with even fewer edits. I also note that you started a section about your version. Frankly, I don't know anything about the content of the article or the content dispute, but I am watching the article in terms of editor conduct. If you believe that Barayev or Gabriel are sock accounts, then you need to file a report at WP:SPI. Otherwise, you kind of have to deal with with you've got and try to sort out the content issues on the Talk page (or other content dispute resolution forums) without battling in the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just protect the article for a couple of weeks, so that everyone is forced to concentrate on discussions or RFC/Mediation dispute resolution methods, and prevent further possible socking by hit-and-run kamikaze accounts which are used to bait the long-standing editors into breaking 3RR. Don't you find it a bit suspicious that two brand new users have jumped into an edit-war on this article? WP:SPI is pointless here, as there is no suspect but rather suspicious behavior raising all kinds of red flags. Knowingly sing fringe content in Wikipedia, should be treated as a behavioral issue. I understand that you're not familiar with this subject, but please take look at the comment of an administrator, addressing another edit by one these SPAs on Rumi. [4] Kurdo777 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kurdo, after your first post, I started looking into some of the possible problems you've mentioned. I'll continue looking and see if there's some way I - or someone else - can help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the right approach for now, protection can be tried if people refuse to participate on the talk page and just go back to warring. Protection is better than warring, but people willingly talking on the talk page is still better than protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm not too familiar with SPI process, is it possible for you to initiate a check on these three editors [5][6][7] ? I suspect that these two SPAs are somehow connected to E4024, given their editing style/POV/language barriers. Gabriel Stijena , in particular, seems to working as a revert machine for E4024 on the various Turkish nationalist disputes he is involved in, like Cyprus.[8] Also, please note the personal attacks against me here.[9] This is what I meant by baiting. The personal attacks seem to be deliberate, to get a reaction from me. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo, I saw your post asking Dennis to look here. I'm going to let him address your questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the problem here is that I am not familiar with the subject matter, which makes a determination much more difficult and requires a technical behavioral comparison in order to justify asking a checkuser run a full check, and that takes more time that I have this evening. I will try to look at it, but it would likely be better to find an admin who is more familiar with the subject matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how admin tools work, but I think it is similar to a checkbox, like in Special:Preferences. At the moment, the page is protected against non-autoconfirmed editors (at the end, any person with 10 edits or more + s/he has been 4 days here will become autoconfirmed). If you want to make a full move-protection, you should change the "autoconfirmed" to "sysop", for example: Gray mouse lemur, which can give you an idea. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the page is indefinitely move-protected against non-autoconfirmed editors. I don't want to change that to be more protective. Are you saying there shouldn't be any template at the top of an article like that?

There are four move templates. The "dispute" and "vandalism" templates don't apply. Thus, we are left with indef and the most generic, {{pp-move}}. Seems like indef is best, although it doesn't explain what it means by "high-visibility" pages - somehow I don't think this is one. All it says it does is put the page into a category. The generic one appears to both put the page into a category and add a green icon - don't ask me why it does that and indef doesn't. In any event, neither works because I get an error message when I try to add it. Ironically, the only reason I even applied indefinite move protection was to carry something over from a previous admin action done earlier. I have no other basis for move-protecting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have protected the Stephen Leather page. I wanted to come here so that you could have a heads up that I am going to be doing some major revisions to the article. Thought you would like to know as you are probably watching the page. Hopefully these changes will clear up any issues of NPOV. I also left a message on the talk page for the other editors involved in a discussion (although they look like they have only come to Wikipedia for that specific article so not sure if they are NPOV). It should only take me about 10 minutes to complete all of the edits as they are waiting in my sandbox. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I am thinking about breaking out his books and creating an article just for his list of books but I will look at it at a later date (I am burned out from tracking down all of the ISBN's for the books listed. --Morning277 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]