User talk:Bbb23/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

User:Zipititzip

Perhaps you can have a look at User:Zipititzip. He seslf admits and clearly is a sock of User:Ashutosh4422, but he makes a claim that WP (some admin?) has agreed to this restart. Since you have delat with this user before, you may know more about the background and be a better judge of what to do. I deleted his recreation of Nitesh Tiwari, but restored an older version which was IMO incorrectly speedied. Feel free to correct or revert any of my actions in this. Fram (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fram, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked the user and spent a fairly long time cleaning up after him. What was wrong with the speedy delete on the Nitesh Tiwari article? I believe it was FreeRangeFrog who deleted it based on an A7. My deletions came later. I see nothing in it now (it's a bit better formatted) that says much. I also wonder about the editor who recreated it. They have a much longer history here, but they also have a lot of deleted articles. Why recreate that particular article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. About the article: someone who has directed at least two blue-linked films and has an article / interview in Yahoo Celebrity should IMO not be speedy deleted for lack of claim to importance. AfD may be necessary of course, but speedy should not be used in such cases. (Speedy G5 is something different, I have no problem with those). It seems as if an AfD would have no chance either though, he clearly has some notability[1]. Note that the first movie, which he co-directed, won a National Film Awards (India). As for the original creator, he also created e.g. Deven Khote and Haidar Ali (actor), so it's not as if he wasn't interested in Bollywood before this creation. I don't think there is a connection to the later socks (but I haven't studied it in depth of course). Fram (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Puts my mind (mostly ) at rest. Perhaps I'm occasionally too jaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

collaboration

Hello you reverted my edits and reported me to another editor. Is this assuming good faith? Inevitably me pointing out the way you treated me will make me a bigger target for you to attack. Thewhitebox (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, can you please help me with the coding? I am trying to make Template:User_alternative_account more like the sockpuppet templates - for example - centered. Thewhitebox (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Linda Tally Smith

What happened? I mistyped. Linda Tally Smith is a public official. She's a major prosecutor, a public official, which means the public should know about her. I do not know her, nor care. Just was going to post a bunch of stubs about other public officials in Kentucky. So I guess public officials are off limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't received any feedback. That was very quick deletion. Just doesn't seem right to me. Accuracy is important, but the mistake was one the talk page, and the only reason you know that her husband is a Judge is because you read the page. She's a prosecutor, which was typed up accurately, and I even put other categories of pages that related to it. Commonwealth's Attorney is an elected position. I do not understand this. This makes no sense at all. There's many public officials in Kentucky with no wikipedia pages. Is that the point? To keep public officials secret? I thought wikipedia is about informing folks? Weird. I feel like this was sexist. Is it because she's a girl? Or because I am? I need a better explanation than the one you gave. You need to say that public officials are off limits, or restore this page. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This user has done this before it seems with other users. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand that I agree with your desire to see this article deleted. I've removed the speedy basically for IAR, since the creator's clearly confused and ought to be given a fuller chance to see our processes and to understand what we need for an article. I'd be willing to start its AFD, or to let you do it (whichever you prefer), although either way I hope that the deletion rationale can be explained in a newbie-friendly manner. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should start the AfD, Nyttend, because you'll be friendlier than I would be at this point. I'm struggling to accept good faith. To bolster the notability of the first article, she's now created two more articles, one about the person who was convicted and the other about the victim - this is all included in the Smith article, which now makes those links blue instead of red. She also removed the speedy delete tag once from the Smith article after I tagged it. Just so you know, I've just tagged the victim article. I'm holding off tagging the victim article because it actually is probably sufficiently notable to withstand an A7. Thanks for coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tally Smith completed. NeilN created a substantially less explanatory nomination for Walter Sartory while I was writing up Smith's. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be hard for anyone to write a nomination that is more explanatory, Nyttend. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sartory's death might warrant an article with sources like this. All the others could be redirected to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe there was a similar, if not identical, article in the Seattle Times. That's the main reason I didn't tag it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Aquiline nose

It's pretty clear the IP and Wazzabee7 are the same editor. 3RRNB, SPI, or just leave it alone? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already created a report at AN3 and pointed out the obvious there. I dunno about an SPI. I would file one only if the IPs continue to edit overlapping with Wazzabee7. If they stop, I don't much see the point, but another clerk might have a different take.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

FARZI to Farzi

Hi Bbb23, Can you move this FARZI page to Farzi per correct caps? currently correct title is protected. Chander 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

National Integrated College

Hi. I tagged National Integrated College with CSD A7, but you said it's not allowed and I see that exception now in the rule (though the ref to the huge discussion without summary doesn't do much to explain why). WP:NSCHOOL says it must satisfy "this section" or WP:GNG. Since WP:NSCHOOL is numbered 4.1.1, I take "this section" to mean section 4.1 (WP:NGO) (since there is nothing beyond WP:NSCHOOL in 4.1.1). The school at issue satisfies neither WP:NGO nor WP:GNG. It's an unref'd orphan and I can't find anything other than the usual non-RS stuff with a search. It's unlikely to ever be more than a means of promoting this private business and attractor of non-encyclopedic edits from its teenage students. What do I do with it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, prod it and/or take it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Policy-compliant:"

It's probably not going to be an issue, because it's extremely unlikely that an admin would close an RfC in a way that wasn't compliant with policy, but, hypothetically speaking, no Wikipedia editor should be forced to take any action which violates policy. At least, that's my view. BMK (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the points you make, but, again, speaking hypothetically, let's say an admin tells you to do x. You say that x violates some policy. The admin says that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect. We then have an impasse. I don't want you to have the ability to refuse based on that. I hope that makes some sense, hypothetically speaking. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It does. It's similar to my real-life rule of thumb that it's best to do what the nice policeman tells you to do, whether or not you agree with it or think he or she has the proper authority, and then let a lawyer deal with it later, if it's that serious. (Not that I've ever had to actually use that rule.) BMK (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, unlike most people, when I get stopped by a cop, I barely say anything. For example, a favorite cop question: do you know why I stopped you? It's stupid for people to say "because I was speeding"? Particularly if they're going to contest the ticket. I just hand over my registration, proof of insurance, and answer ordinary questions if they ask, e.g., do you have the time? --Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nutshell summary

Regarding this comment: the seeming conflict in the enumerated points, which come from the nutshell summary of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, is that point 3 is directed at all editors, so it asks them to contact an admin to have the user blocked, whereas point 4 is directed at administrators, who are then able to exercise their judgment. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, but take a look at the body of the essay under "Administrator action". Even though the word "should" is used, it seems to severely limit the discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I was only speaking about the conflict you had originally mentioned between points 3 and 4 (you had not written the second comment yet at the time I composed the previous post). I agree that the default expectation is a block for threats towards others (this point came up recently on I believe WP:ANI, where the difference between threats towards others and threats towards oneself was highlighted). isaacl (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is back

Hello, the case you dealt with earlier (over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive has been reopened, as the shill has come back with different IP's and older ones, mentioned here [2]. I kindly request you to return, if you can, and help finish the matter for now. Greetings, JamesRussels (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

JamesRussels, I apologize for not responding earlier, but things have been a bit hectic for me on- and off-wiki. However, Callanecc ably disposed of your report, so you were in very good hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:E4024

Sorry about that. I was unaware that there were no pages in the two categories, the user's confirmed or suspected sockpuppets but there is a sockpuppet investigations casepage here. Eyesnore (pc) 00:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. In general, non-administrators should not be tagging editors with sock puppet tags. When there's an investigation, either an admin or a clerk will take care of it. Your tag was highly unconventional as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I know. So non-admins should not use block-related templates like {{uw-block}} or {{sockpuppet}} unless on experiments. Eyesnore (pc) 01:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go into details, it would include admins and SPI clerks, even if they're not admins. I think it's acceptable - or at least not uncommon - to use {{sockpuppet|username}}, although I'm not crazy about it. If there's no SPI filed and you think somone is a sock puppet, then you must have a reason. If you do, you should open an SPI. Otherwise, to me, it feels more like a personal attack. You should also not use {{sockpuppeteer}}. I hope all of this makes some sense to you. Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of bad faith. It's kind of complicated and not well understood by many users.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD reverts

Bbb, do you personally object to my addition to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion P1? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got a better question. Who were you before you created this account?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If you've figured it out, then you probably understand why I'm not answering that question. I don't see it as relevant, though, and I don't see the edit I made as controversial. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on what's relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, back to the original question... Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at the wikilink I posted here ([3])? This is really becoming an increasingly unmanageable situation for those of us in his cross-hairs, due to the sheer amount of time he's devoted to this. DocumentError (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hi what's the matter, why people are removing information from "Bhumihar" page. If you have any issue lets discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin access to deleted page histories

EdJohnston suggested I ping you for advice since you do a lot of SPI clerking.

For the last few weeks I've been working on a cleanup effort of spammy and spam-like content that may have been generated by a large network of paid socks or meats. I've only just begun. So far I've focused on the content, and I was planning on dealing with the conduct issues at the end. However, I've run into a bit of a conundrum relating to article deletion. I've nominated some of the most problematic articles for CSD (a mix of G11 and G12), and I've had 5-10 accepted so far. (I don't have access to a list as I only learned about CSD logging just now.) A few other articles I've tagged (advert, notability, etc.) have been subsequently nominated for AFD by DGG. By the end of the cleanup project I wouldn't be surprised to see 50 articles deleted one way or another.

The trouble is, as these pages are deleted, I lose the ability to gather some of the best evidence of socking. RHaworth has suggested nominating me for RFA but I doubt I have the requisite experience for that. DGG has suggested putting off all deletions until the SPI process is complete. That could certainly be done if necessary but I believe it wouldn't be beneficial to the cleanup effort or the project as a whole. There is also no way for us to stop other editors from nominating pages for deletion. I even made a VPP proposal to allow admins to grant non-admins view-deleted rights but that clearly isn't going anywhere.

Ultimately the question is, do you have any bright ideas for how to get around this problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gather the evidence first - link to a diff, an article, whatever. When you then create the SPI after the article is deleted, the admin can still click the now redlink, or link to a no-longer-existent article and be shown the option to view it the panda ₯’ 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DP. I'm thinking about this approach but it would seriously delay the cleanup process. We're talking about at least 500 articles, each one created by a separate SPA. I suspect this is the work of a Wiki-PR-type organization with a whole team of individuals. Sorting out who's socking with whom could take ages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman, this strikes me as an unusual task for an editor to embark on. What prompted your interest in it?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This unusual contribution history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to go through all that user's edits. What in particular do you infer from the contributions (with a few diffs please)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The user was an extremely precocious SPA (first edit), editing articles about a handful of affiliated organizations, in what I felt was a promotional way. We got into several content disputes. After a few days of this the user took an abrupt pivot (first edit after pivot here) and started a weird curation project, claiming to have engaged in a "massive re-categorization project" totally unrelated to their prior work. They have done this curation for hundreds and hundred articles now. This would seem to be totally innocuous, but if you look at these articles you'll see they're overwhelmingly promotional in tone, many of them (not all) reading like press releases. There are some eerie similarities in writing style. Look at their histories and you'll see the majority of them were created by separate SPAs fully-formed in those SPAs' very first edits, just like this user's first edit. As I started cleaning up these pages the user first accused me of hounding (my response here), and then started harassing me. (If you want to know more about the harassment I ask that you e-mail me.) I've continued to work on clean-up efforts, undeterred. DGG started piggybacking off me yesterday and first raised the question that I now present to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took the one example you gave me (the creation of the talk page for Eagle’s Wings Foundation and followed it through. That article was created by User:Morphseo whose only contributions to Wikipedia were the creation of that article and a related article, The Villa Group Resorts. Schmatica created talk pages for both articles (different kinds, though) and edited both articles. Morphseo has not edited or created any deleted pages. Schematica, OTOH, has edited many, mostly adding or refining the non-profit cats he apparently created and sometimes adding talk pages to the articles. He's also made some gnomish edits. I don't think he's actually created any that have been deleted. I can sort of see where you're going with this, but it's a massive effort even if you were able to look at deleted pages. The trying to tie all the connections together to demonstrate something sanctionable would take you a lot of time. Is there anything you can think of that would be less ambitious, at least as a first effort? You might have enough evidence to tie Schematica and Morphseo together just on what you can see, but I won't predict how a CU or an SPI clerk (even me) would react if you created an investigation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I always appreciate your deep dives and careful analyses. Two reactions:

• "I can sort of see where you're going with this, but it's a massive effort even if you were able to look at deleted pages. The trying to tie all the connections together to demonstrate something sanctionable would take you a lot of time." Yes, this is a huge project and I don't know if this is something I can do all by myself. My hope is that others will come along to help out. (Perhaps an admin can do the SPI work while I focus on the content cleanup.)
• "You might have enough evidence to tie Schematica and Morphseo together just on what you can see, but I won't predict how a CU or an SPI clerk (even me) would react if you created an investigation." I'm not seeking any SPI or sanctions against Schematica, at least at the moment, and I'm not suggesting that Morphseo and Schematica are necessarily socks, or that all of these pages were created by the same individual. What I am suggesting is that these pages may have been created by a coordinated group of individuals, each of whom used socks to hide their tracks. At the end of the day, there might be enough evidence to sanction Schematica or there might not, it's too early to tell.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, let's go back then to what you were asking for. How about if we start slowly? Your only handicap is the inability to look at deleted pages. I can, for example, userfy a deleted page as long as it's not prohibited by policy, e.g., copyright issues. First, though, you have to identify a user so I can see what's there. It might be a bit tedious, but we can continue this dialog in that fashion. I'm not promising how long I'll continue to do this. It sort of depends on the results you get. I confess it is intriguing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and FYI, I'm working on this and will let you know when I need your help. It may be some time before I need to review deleted page histories. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break (for readability)

DrFleishchman, you have officially jumped the shark. First of all, I am harassing you? What are you talking about? And it's absolutely absurd that you've interpreted my minor category edits as some sort of massive sock puppet ring. You are hounding me. I've made minor category edits on a lot of really crappy pages. And now you think it's my fault the pages are crappy? I didn't create them, or add anything of substance. Drop the witch hunt. Schematica (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Christine Shevchenko‎

Question: I requested a speedy deletion for this page as it is a redirect page so I could create an article for it and will count towards article creation but a user keeps removing it saying it's not a legit reason for a speedy delete. I've done this before but he keeps reverting me saying no. Am I in the wrong on this or is that a legit reason? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of using the tag for that reason, but that doesn't mean it's not done. It's not one of the examples given for G6, but I assume the examples aren't intended to be exhaustive. Why don't you raise the question on WT:CSD?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Check

Ain't Worth The Whiskey check this article for patrolling. What type of tag we should apply to this kind of article.--Owais khursheed (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to speedy tags, it's not subject to speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas, reliable sources

Excuse me! My sources for Thomas' obsession with porno flicks are the NY Daily News, and CNN itself. How in the world can anyone say these are not reliable sources??? If CNN is not a reliable source, then no source is reliable. Goblinshark17 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The NY Daily News certainly isn't a reliable source for such a claim about a living person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

How about CNN? Reliable enough for you? Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Deeply controversial claims about living persons normally require multiple reliable sources, for one thing. Also, it really rather depends on what they said and how our article summarises that in conjunction with the other reliable sources that must also be used to reference what this person is notable for.

So if CNN said "Demiurge1000 is a British lawyer best known for an obsession with pornographic movies", then a Wikipedia article about Demiurge1000 might mention such a thing in such strong terms (though not the informal ones you use here).

If, on the other hand, and for example, CNN merely reported that someone had hidden a sizeable stash of pornographic material behind some garbage cans where it was subsequently found by the police (as happened to some notable UK news or media or somesuch figure fairly recently), then that would certainly not be sufficient to use the word "obsession" or anything similar, or even perhaps to mention the incident in the Wikipedia article about that person at all. (An exercise for the reader is to check whether the current Wikipedia article does mention it...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion edits again

Bbb, I guess I'm asking a second time, did you personally disagree with my edit, putting redirect-to-article in the speedy deletion non-criteria? There are zero pages on Wikipedia that require consensus for every edit, so since you reverted, that means you object, and I'd like to know your objection. Being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#List this on non-criteria Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ThePromenader

Hello. I've just discovered this posted by User:ThePromenader in the administrators' noticeboard: [4]. I'm at a loss for words really. Personal attacks, insinuations, unsubstantiated claims. Not a single shred of evidence that I can discuss. You told the editors in the Paris talk page that: "If you don't have enough evidence, then stop making the accusations in the first instance because, in that context, they constitute personal attacks." And now this, coming from someone who must have read your message, since he's an active member of the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably see it in any case, but as I mentioned you by name I leave the notice just in case.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Paris

Hi Bbb23, Could you cast your eye over the talk page of the Paris article please? (From an entirely neutral point of view, obviously). There is a lot of suspicious editing activity going on, with some POV pushers whose editing only seems to become active when the question of the page's main image is raised. Historically there has been meat puppeting going on, traced back to a forum on a skyscraper website (which is part of there discussion on the page). I am becoming increasingly bored (but hugely irritated) by a series of these suspicious editors who are very quick to throw some very unfounded ownership accusations out (on an article I have only edited 13 times, and where I am trying to discuss possible changes to the images). I have very strong suspicions that meat puppeting (or socking) is going on, although there is no evidence of this (having been pulled up on this before, I suspect they have changed their modus operandi to avoid detection this time round). The article is locked (following a request from me to do so, given the edit warring), and I have filed at 3RR against one of the editors who has reverted five times in 40(ish) hours, despite numerous requests for a consensus to develop on the talk page before any changes take place. There are five live threads on this topic on the talk page at the moment:

5 Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense

6 A cat then?

7 Please leave out Tour Montparnasse from montage

8 When a discussion is not going 'your way', just deny that it exists!

9 Eiffel Tower image

If you are able to have a look, and perhaps to curtail some of the current excesses (of which I am know I am also guilty), it can only be for the best. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your earlier comments on the page. I thought that may curb some of the excesses, but it appears that some are still intent on unfounded attacks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

and again! These constant lies and attacks are intolerable, and the problem is that if I react to them in a blast of solid Anglo-Saxon, I'm the one who will face censure, and not the editor who is causing this particular issue. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

oh, good grief! - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved suggestion : Have each participant put together a single image or montage that they think best represents Paris. Accompany this with a SHORT reasoning behind the selection of the images (and not commenting about why other's images are inappropriate). Make an RFC for people to choose between them, or provide comments on them. Neutrally advertise the RFC in the relevant noticeboards and wikiprojects, and let outside opinions carry the day. While historical participants of this debate are of course allowed to provide a !vote and reasoning, they should not dominate the discussion and try to convince every participant of their view, as that will actually discourage wider input. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given this lot of edits when trying to move things in a more constructive direction, I'm out of the monumental clusterfuck of a talk page. It seems that too many overly-entrenched opinions are not going to get to any form of agreement over this. I'm monumentally pissed off with meat puppets, (and yes, I stand by that accusation, given all that happened last time, and the duck-like behaviour this time), incivility, stupid insults and lack of objectivity. I'm out, and without major admin oversight this utter abomination will continue to fester and flare up continually. Good luck looking at it, although I have been disappointed with the admin oversight on the page so far, despite requests for help at 3RR (reported 23 hours ago and no-one has grasped the nettle to do anything), and the edit warring after your warning (you may have left a warning on Metropolitan's page, but the inflammatory, uncivil and untruthful heading he warred to put back in there is still present – you may no think it was an issue, but it is pissing people off monumentally, and does not help calm discussion on the talk page.

I see the whole fucking mess is now at ANI (in two separate threads). If I can bring myself to comment about the, quite frankly, idiotic behaviour on the page, I may do, but this should have been dealt with by numerous admins some time ago. I appreciate that this is not your fault and that I am venting spleen in the wrong direction, but considering I went through so many different admin channels to get some eyes on the stupidity (all of my attempts referring to each other, to avoid accusations of forum shopping), that I am hugely, monumentally and utterly pissed off that it has ended up in such a fucking mess. I am moving inevitably towards the conclusion that for all its benefits, Wikipedia is too dysfunctional to operate properly. Or that there are too few decent admins able to stand up and take action. Or that it's too easy to use meat puppets, organise through emails an attack on a talk page, and game the system. Or all of the above. I have no doubt that you or someone else will be tempted to block or ban me based on what I honestly believe has happened here (based on the known, proven history of those involved and WP:DUCK), but I realise that I no longer give a flying fuck what the administrative process of such a broken system may bring about. I'll drop a link to this onto the ANI threads, as I says all I want to say on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

HoshiNoKaabii2000

Some userpage editing occurred on Forgave's talk page; I've updated the SPI with it. Nate • (chatter) 21:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Title section revert

Hi, I was at the office earlier and I hadn't noticed your warning before restoring the title of the section. I'm sorry for that. Of course I won't do such a revert again.

Just to clarify, I've opened a new section to indeed alert some contributors that they were behaving in a way in line with the examples of ownership behaviour as described here. In return the title of the section has been twisted to something unrelated and one of my message has been erased. It is the first time I see people editing other's signed contributions in a talk page. This just looks crazy to me. Metropolitan (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan, thanks for the explanation. It doesn't suprise me, which is why I issued a warning directly on your talk page rather than blocking. As for the refactoring, there are a lot of edits to that page. I'd need diffs showing the refactoring. Bear in mind: sometimes it's unintentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff where my message had been erased: [5] - Metropolitan (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I can tell you what happened. Your edit changed the section title and added a comment about ANI. Your edit summary mentioned only the section title. Coldcreation did a simple revert of your entire edit without probably realizing that they were not only reverting the title but also your addition. Another not quite so benevolent explanation is that they didn't care because they were annoyed with the title change and weren't going to bother to do a partial revert. I've done that myself, although I usually reserve it for more straightforward disruption, which your edit was not. I don't know which explanation is correct or if there's another one, but that's my analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a simple revert of the entire edit without realizing that there was any other text.Coldcreation (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 93.173.134.213

Hey Bbb23, the IP 89.138.208.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is abetting the blocked IP user, 93.173.134.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in edit warring. This may be block evasion, and it appears to be so. Could you please look over to see if the IP 89.138.208.89 is a sockpuppet? Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And since they seem to be edit warring, I left a message to them. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I semi-protected the article for a month. I backed out the section added by the blocked IP. I blocked the latest IP (three so far), and, on an unrelated issue, I added a COI tag to the article because of a user (who is autoconfirmed so will not be prevented from editing the article) with an obvious conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think there's another IP in the fray now, 109.186.117.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They are trolling on the article talk page and accusing Chambermagic of ownership. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There are so many. They're all coming from the same place and service, but they occupy different ranges, so although I'm not an expert on range blocks, I don't see how it would work. If necessary, I'll semi-protect the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And you were threatening to block me for edit warring! I was in the right! Luxure (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had been reverting an IP evading a block, you would have been fine, but that wasn't the case at the time. It's all your fault, anyway. You reacted very nicely to my comments (I wish everyone were that pleasant to deal with), but look at all the work you've created for me since. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. I hope it wasn't too much work, but seeing as you wield the mop... Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat

Hello again. I've just written this bellow on the Paris talk page where we were asked to say whether we supported or opposed the photomontage by Dr Blofeld. I have never contacted any admin or opened any file at WP:ANI about this issue, because I am frankly not that sort of person, but since I've been publicly accused, framed for banishment, with two files opened about me at ANI in the last week by the same editors, I would like to notify an admin about the issue below. Could you let me know what you think about it? I have tried to give a summary as succinct and faithful as possible, with diffs. Thank you. (PS: If you need more information, just let me know) Der Statistiker (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There were various discussion on the talk page and arbitrations which User:Metropolitan has summarized above, and they all concluded that there was no consensus for a photomontage replacing the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense. User:Dr. Blofeld started editing the Paris article on 23 June 2013 because it had been nominated for GA (Good Article) status, and on 2 July 2013 this editor put a photomontage in the infobox without paying attention to the previous talk page discussion and arbitrations or opening a discussion on the talk page: [6]. 5 days later, I reverted Dr. Blofeld's montage and politely pointed out that there was no consensus for a montage, and that it had already been discussed on the talk page (in case Dr Blofeld didn't know): [7]. Only 3 and half hours later, I was reverted by User:SchroCat without any explanation: [8]. Please note that after going back in the edit history of the article until 2011, I cannot find a single edit by SchroCat in the Paris article until that 7 July 2013 edit which consisted in reverting me and replacing Dr Blofeld's montage in the infobox. SchroCat came to the article apparently with the sole intention of "protecting" the montage of Dr. Blofeld. And all that has happened since then is the consequence of this original problem: forcing a montage in the infobox with disregard for all previous talk page discussions and arbitrations, and then reverting anyone who attempts to remove Dr Blofeld's montage from the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talk page of both users to inform them that I am bringing this issue to you. Hope you don't mind, but otherwise they might accuse me of acting in their back. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, my only interest in any of this relates to misconduct, not to content. You're asking me to help you frame a "vote" about content and consensus. I'm unwilling to do that, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think there was a misunderstanding here. I of course did not ask you to help me "frame" a vote. The reason why there is "oppose" written in my message above is because I simply copied and pasted the message I wrote in the talk page. My point was not about the vote, but about what I perceive as the misconduct of Dr Blofeld and his friend SchroCat (in particular, coming in an article SchroCat had never edited before to revert the article in order to protect the photomontage of his friend Dr Blofeld; I've given you the diffs). Please also note that a few hours ago an admin openly said at ANI that these two editors (Dr Blofled and SchroCat) had contacted him off-wiki ([9]), yet these same editors have accused other editors repeatedly of canvassing. I would like to know whether any of this is in breach of the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia, and if so, what should be done. Thanks. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As I put on the talk page, "More bad faith as to the legitimate reason I came here. If you have suspicions over bad faith on my part, provide a diff. If not strike out the lies and innuendo." - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really care Bbb, but if you delve back into the history of the Paris article and talk page, especially July-August 2013 you'll see why a topic ban for this troublemaker is definitely needed. I originally improved it from a shoddy poorly sourced article to GA status and all I got was grief for weeks from this editor and others he canvassed who had not been active since 2006. He's nothing but a malicious troll with extreme OWN issues. He's edited this year and not once brought up the montage image. It's been accepted for over a year. Something off wiki has triggered this sudden meat puppetry escapade trying to replace my montage which is disruptive. He did this sort of thing last year when editors canvassed off wiki turns up suspiciously to try to force a change to the article and revert all of the good work back. If Bbb isn't willing to act I'm sure another admin at some point will. The history of the talk page and your disruption speaks for itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"my only interest in any of this relates to misconduct,". That's hardly true is it? There's multiple violations of WP:MEATPUPPET going on at Talk:Paris to stack votes and not one admin will step up to the plate and deal with it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do find the lack of admin oversight on this matter to be of very grave concern, thus my long thread in a section or two above. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Der Statistiker reported by User:SchroCat (Result: ) was opened at 21:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) and remains undealt with three days later, which is just poor. Because this has not been dealt with properly, more infringements are taking place. I know Wiki is a big place and admin numbers are limited, but the lack of effort by the admin cadre on this matter really is shocking here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IP sock back at his old habits again

As you asked me to inform you if there were further incidents and I've just seen some, I'll share what I know on the User:lgfcd's recent sock-edits. He's back under several IPs (200.219.133.150 200.219.132.103 and 200.219.132.105; all three of them were chattering together at Talk:Arrow_(Israeli_missile) and converged to change the citation style of Embraer E-Jet E2 family recently, see [10]) and is making the same WP:CITEVAR violations as ever (see the Embraer example, or this Boeing one [11] and reversion by another editor), he just hasn't learnt anything and is continuing the same havoc as ever. Should we speak with him and try to get him to stop the citevar violations, or is banning him again all that can be done to stem the disruption? Kyteto (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, Kyteto, that I didn't get to this today. It's been busy for me on Wikipedia and in my real life (it is Sunday, after all). And I won't be able to look at the situation today as it's late and I don't have the energy. I'll try to get to it later, but in the interim feel free to reopen the SPI if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, I am not in a particular rush to get the issue closed - there's no need for an immediate response, it's not a high priority. I'm happy enough that it's just going to be looked at in the future. Kyteto (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kyteto, if I'd known it was going to be this easy, I would have done this earlier. :-) Two of the IPs had already been blocked twice for block evasion, and the third came from the same place. I blocked all three for six months. There's no point in talking to the master, and I'm not sure what you mean by "banning him again". Feel free to come back if there's more problems, even if it takes me a bit to get geared up. It might speed things up if you mentioned if any of the IPs have been blocked before OR if any of them come from the same range (Chamber of Deputies in Brazil). Thanks very much for your interest in protecting the project and for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action. I actually just found another one of his socks: 200.219.132.70. It's quacking fairly loudly (shooting through some of the same articles as the other IPs, similar style edits and descriptions, same location ect). Kyteto (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another sock IP has appeared, 191.176.12.10 - it's almost certainly the same person. ~Edit~ Just spotted two more - he's all over the place: 187.36.81.239 and 200.219.132.76. Kyteto (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:MRMPS

Hi Bbb23 - hope your vacation is going well. Sorry to bother you but I'm maxed out in terms of free time and it's that time of year again the WP:MRMPS needs to be renewed. If you haven't got any free time to do this I'll try to take a look. Given the number of issues relating to that page (topic bans, page protections, 1RR violations) as well as the broader issue concerning reddit and misogyny on WP there are clear reasons why this should be renewed - perhaps making it indefinite could also be considered. If you don't have time let me know and I'll do my best to draft an AN/ANi thread WRT this--Cailil ^talk 11:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. This is Jiten Mehrotra. Just saw you deleted a page made on Kunal Bhardwaj by somebody with A7 (No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event) as the reason. I believe there was a proper explanation that its about a real person along with his DOB and achievements as well as proper links. Can you please elaborate on the explanation for deletion? Thank you115.115.222.123 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Jitin

References

(talk page stalker) I made sure the ref links stay in this talkpage section rather than falling to the bottom of the page. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to log in before I'll revisit the delete. (Thanks, DMacks.) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Karis_McLarty

Hello, please can you delete the comment of nha trang at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karis_McLarty

the comment is offensive to me. he said karis is an energatic self promoter. that means karis wrote all the source and the wiki article? It is not true. Warn that user to be civil while commenting. The wiki article and the discussion can be seen by people from all over the world. It is harasment for us. Delete the whole article or such comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.205.190 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the phrase was removed, although I'm not sure why you came to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice required

Hi Bbb23

Please could you contact me on the email address below to discuss how this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alon_Shtruzman can be edited to meet with Wikipedia's criteria so it go live again?

Best Laura 81.140.40.25 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) laura.saunders@keshet-tv.com

Beware WP:PAID and related policies/guidelines if you have any sort of conflict of interest in this topic. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do that, and, as far as I can tell, your editing as an IP is block evasion. As an aside, the article you created was almost empty.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RR Noticeboard

Your attention is requested. [12] Andyvphil (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Russians

What kind of judgment is that? Why should I risk being blocked when it's the IP address who refuses to negotiate? This is the same vandal who refers to me as a rat. Did you even understand what the situation was? Clearly not. Khazar (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you ask and respond to your own question, so I suppose you just came here to vent. My warning still stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I at least expect you to participate in some form of consensus. If you don't, then your handling of the situation won't be as effective as Alex's. Khazar (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Another flaw in your petty warning is the fact that the IP will simply revert once the lock is lifted. Afterwards, the IP will see no purpose in using the talk page and will do so only if someone reverts him. With that in mind, how is a fair consensus suppose to be established? In one scenario, the IP gets the desired revision. In the second scenario, the IP will start harassing whoever reverted the edit and claim that the "consensus is impossible" Khazar (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimjilin

He's already had a DS alert today, yours was the 2nd. Definitely an editor who isn't going to last long if he continues this way. Glad to see you back. Did you see the Syrian Civil war sanctions have been renamed? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. After I posted the alert, I also posted a message to Callanecc's talk page (self-explanatory if you want to read it). Regardless of my technical issues, I should've seen the other alert; it certainly wasn't far away. :-) Anyway, I reverted mine. Yes, I noticed the change to the sanctions, although I think the sanctions should have been modified in a different way (I believe there was a suggestion from Phil Knight, but it could have been another administrator). Thanks for watching my back.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It was HJMitchell who notified Jimjilin. Sorry the sanctions thing happened while you were away - that was too fast IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted my page for no reason it took my an hour to make it! From Itsrandomtime (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Majidch81 Page Deletion

Hi Bbb23, I am here to ask you the reason for deletion of my user page. I can add the required references to the page. Please let me know if the restoration is possible at this stage or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majidch81 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not allowed to have a user page like the one you put up, which was a quasi article and whose only apparent purpose was to promote you. Your user page is for Wikipedia-related information, not a proxy for a website.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. But can I create my own simple wikipedia profile page or not? --Majid Chaudhry (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a more important question for you. What do you want to do at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Favour

Can you block this IP sock of Nangperbat please? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

DS, sorry, but I need more reminding of who Nangperbat is (and you misspelled the name because there is no account with that name).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should be Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done --Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Mistake editing template.

Thanks for reverting my mistake.

I really have no idea how I followed the links to filling out a template, and ending up writing over stuff. But thanks for reverting it so quickly.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was a mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

CSD A1

CSD A1 says that it is applicable to very short articles lacking sufficient text. These 2 articles were only in 1 line and thus i tagged them by this criteria. I have read speedy deletion guidelines of Wikipedia already and you are the only admin that tells me repeatedly not to tag by CSD A1. If i am wrong then tell me why in 'detail'. Owais khursheed (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided you a link to the criterion on your talk page (WP:CSD#A1). It does not say "lacking sufficient text". Why don't you read it again and tell me what you think it means?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Dev Team 6

Bbb23 I saw you just deleted all of the content I added to the page regarding Adam C. Gray. Your explanation was that the information was "excessively promotional" and that "sourced "negative" material was removed. I understand restoring the "negative material", but I fail to see a distinction between a page that promote negative stories about a person (ie the one you restored) vs one that is positive. The only real difference is that the negative stories have been added over the course of a few weeks while I tried to summarize the other stories in one go. Everything I added was legitimately sources from real news organizations, so I failed to see how it does not qualify as legitimate information. If I utilize the stories you restored, but also add back in the parts I wrote, would you be satisfied with the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Team 6 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are a new editor and your only interest thus far seems to be in the Gray article. The article's history is one of WP:SPAs editing the article from opposing and non-neutral viewpoints, meaning that one SPA likes Gray and tries to remove anything negative about him and another dislikes Gray and tries to add negative material. This kind of editing is unhealthy and disruptive to Wikipedia, and it's my role to prevent it. What's your interest in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in the article because it is relevant to where I live, and I am a student studying political science and the use of online media. I believe using Wikipedia as a repository of negative articles about people some editor's do not like is not the purpose nor the spirit of the site. As it stands the page in question has been used to report quite literally the only 2 or 3 negative news stories that exist on the internet about this person. If you don't believe me I invite you to do a quick search. This is obviously what the previous editor has used the page for. There also happen to be numerous positive stories about this person, which I summarized and referenced from legitimate news sources. I do understand your choice to restore the "negative material", but if the page can be used to post negative stories, surely it can also be used to post stories that happen to be positive as well? I have made another attempt to edit the page taking your concerns into account. Please let me know what can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Team 6 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For so many years, you are making good decisions and running all administrator boards. You really deserve this! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusations by Stoney1976

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked User:Stoney1976. However, there is still problem with some of their comments. Namely, the problematic topic is Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Consensus_vs._Meat_Puppetry. This issue was raised at Stoney's talk page and I explained there the background of my communication with user:Alexbrn. However, instead of removing their comment, Stoney1976 repeated this and made a new accusation alleging that me and/or Alexbrn are COI editors. I know that every editor has a quite wide of rights about their talk pages but could you please review and, if possible, remove this section from the article's talk page. I know that after eight years in Wikipedia one should have a quite thick skin, but there are moments when that kind of things feel little bit too much. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, but, honestly, I don't see why it bothers everyone so much. Based on what Stoney says, it makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I fully agree with you, but as I said there are moments when that kind of things feel little bit too much. Happened just to have one of these moments. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

M8

Cab you revert this back to the correct dab page? Bearian (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are country clubs and suburban developments really Notable population centers?

Re Abacoa and Country Club at Mirasol, I understand the argument that these are essentially towns, but I'd counter that barring any official recognition as a Census Designated Place, or a popular conception in the media of it being a discrete location, then it's just a collection of houses owned by one company, and should fall under the Notability requirements for business/corporations, and accordingly deleted if they don't show N.

This came up because an AFC submitter for Draft:Evergrene_Country_Club_Community is upset that (paraphrased) "how come all the other country clubs get to advertise on Wikipedia, but my draft is getting declined?"

I dunno, do we need to add something to Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) about commercial residential developments needing to either meet GNG or N:CORP? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a notability issue in this instance. Therefore, I would raise it at WT:CSD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that rather than Prod Abacoa, I cut out the unduly promotional stuff, and put in some decent citations from books about urban planning and the like. I'm not saying the topic is invalid, just that it should be incumbent on submitters to prove N; and I still think Abacoa is a corporation more than a town. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been invited to this discussion because I declined the CSD on Country Club at Mirasol for the same reason that it do not meet the A7 criteria. I feel this is still a populated area it may be managed by a corporation but the article is not about the corporation as much as the land area. WP:GEOLAND states that a land area without legal recognition will have to meet WP:GNG which I believe this article may struggle with, however With the age of the Mirasol article it may be better served with a WP:AfD, as I am under the belief that CSD should only be used on newer articles less then a 1 year old after that it has passed some level of review and then should be discussed about it's removal.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I can't deal with this anymore. No matter how many times I till this user to stop making personal attacks, assumption against me, and putting words in my mouth he just keep doing it. It has been impossible for this "discussion" to continue when he is doing this. Through this discussion this user has:

1. Accused me of playing a "word game" which is irrelevant to the "discussion".[13][14]

2. Stated that I don't know much about what's being discussed.[15][16]

3. Accused me of not reading the links he has provided[17][18]

4. Accused me of not reading his replies[19][20]

5. Accused me of being unable to read[21]

6. Accused me of putting words in his mouth[22]

7. Accused me of lying[23][24][25]

8. Accusing me of making "fun" of him[26]

9. Accusing me of making personal attacks[27]

10. Stated that I have no respect.[28]

I gave him one final warning for him to stop today but he choose to ignore it. Pretty much each of his replies have been poor imitation of mine. They did not really contribute much anyway. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please do something about this. AcidSnow (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through some of the diffs above and I don't see what I would call personal attacks. Rather, I see a heated content dispute with neither of you happy with the other. If you don't think the other editor is contributing much to the discussion, then stop discussing with them. Nothing compels you to respond just because they say something. If there's a dispute that spills over onto the article, then you need to seek content resolution elsewhere (as I believe has been suggested by others).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well first I would like to say I am not here to "Wiki lawyer" or anything like that since I don't know a lot about Wikipedias policies. Anyways, according to WP:PERSONAL it states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Seeing how he stated I have no respect, have made "fun" of him, accused me of making personal attacks, being unable to read, and that I have lied I would assume take these fall under as such as "remarks about the user" and not "their contributions/content on Wikipedia". Anyways, I have requested an RFC so feel free to drop on in. AcidSnow (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would stop but he is still making accusations against me which is kind of putting a dent in my character (how others see me). 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, how are you? To keep up the good work here. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"How are you?" I mean, Bbb23. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Allen, frankly, I don't understand why you leave these sorts of messages on my talk page. AFAIK, I have never had any interaction with you. You left a similar message on Ponyo's talk page. In addition, you have this very odd subpage, User:AllenHAcNguyen/Friends, where you have this list of editors who "love" you and one of your favorite shows. Perhaps some administrators get a little jaded over time - and apparently you are young - but these sorts of posts, as innocuous as they may seem on the surface, are sometimes construed as trolling. Honestly, I think you would be far better off editing articles than spending your time this way. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sand hills, Florida

• This link is at least 50 miles away from the location claimed in the draft, the intersection of state 77 and state 20.
• This is around 15 miles away and on the wrong side of I-10.
• This place is near Weeki Wachee, a couple hundred miles away.
• This website may be about the same place, but makes no mention of any organized communnity, nor is it the same name. Digging deeper into this page, it mentions many lakes, but none named Sand Hills. The editor does not refer to any conservation efforts, nor does the conservation page make any mention of any incorporation plans.

In short, I still don't see it. An article about the geographic feature may be appropriate, as there are a couple GNIS references to different geographic features in Florida called "Sand Hills", however the only one in Bay county is a volunteer fire department. There is hardly enough to move an article about a place into the encyclopedia. No census records, no indication of a post office either current or historical, no GNIS record. By the writing, I am thinking we may be dealing with a kid here. Do you have a suggestion as to how I might help him, and did you find something i didn't? John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now. I wouldn't assume the editor is a kid. His contribution history indicates he's interested in things related to Florida, which makes sense based on what he's said. Regardless of all your evidence, I use G3 per the specific language of the criterion, meaning the hoax has to be blatant and obvious, and this one just isn't. Regardless of that, this is a draft. It has not been moved to main space, so it's only subject to deletion for a handful of reasons (G3 is one of them), but why worry about it even if it is wrong? It's doing very little harm, if any. I'd just let it go unless it actually does get moved to article space, in which case I'd AfD it and present your case. If you feel like it, you could examine Ben's other contributions to see if there's any indication of vandalism or otherwise disruptive edits. I didn't do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-war advise

I had been blocked by you recently for 72h. You had given a warning to the other editor also and noted that he does not get a license to revert. But he reverted after 24h. I added my comment on article talk page now and I have tried to add a trimmed down content with reliable reference and it has been immediately reverted by him with no talk page comment and he again posted a edit warring notice to me. The content I want to put back was in the article for more than at least six months (with same reference) and was not even added by me to begin with. He had replaced it with exactly opposite meaning content, which I had opposed. I am fine if he so dearly wants to insert his new content, like I said in that edit war section also. But his insistence on keeping the old referenced content also out while he repeatedly self declared "consequently I shall revert" on talk page is not helpful to me. The content is referenced to reliable source TOI and The Hindu and was in the article for at least six months. Relevant section User_talk:AmritasyaPutra#Edit_warring_again_on_M._S._Golwalkar. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the 'context' (the talk page section) does matter in considering this incident. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am putting together a summary of what happened after the block, as well as an explanation of how I see things. The talk page discussion is entirely relevant to the editing behaviour because my contention is that AmritasyaPutra has been using reverts as a substitute for meaningful discussion on the talk page. The talk page discussion made progress only after it became amply clear to him that the reverts cannot proceed any further. Kautilya3 (talk)

Draft:Legal Challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Has reappeared. I see you deleted this once before. I know I declined it at WP:AFC. Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Panda deleted the draft. I blocked the new IP and increased the block of the previous IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

Hi Bbb23. I was trying to think of someone I could ask for a fourth opinion of sorts without any possible appearance of canvassing. Since I don't know your position on BLP/privacy or anything else, I thought you would be a good person to ask.

A few editors have, after being notified by me, agreed to remove the following sentence from the McKinsey & Company page, where I have a COI:

For example, according to an article citing public tax records, a senior partner in McKinsey's Norway office earned 67 million NOK in 2011, or between $11 and $12 million USD.(source)

Each time the sentence and/or some related material is removed, it has been restored by user:My2011[29][30][31] in a kind of slow-rolling, mild edit-war over the last year and a half.

My2011's argument (My2011, please correct me if I am mis-stating) is that I am trying to censor or hide criticisms regarding McKinsey's high salaries. My argument is that the short blurb is not a sufficient source, nor should we focus on the salary of any one individual, especially when profile stories in USA Today (citation 65), WSJ (citation 60), BusinessWeek and the Financial Times all estimate most McKinsey directors earn between $1-$3 million. CorporateM (Talk) 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung

Hi, Can you change this page move to semi-protected? Thankyou. (Tommy (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

I semi-protected the page before you posted here. It will be semi-protected for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but i think not yet, can you move to semi-protected page forever? Example such as Inter Milan. Thankyou (Tommy (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

No, there's no justification for such extended protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"No, there's no justification for such extended protection." ? Not that. I mean, move to semi-protected like pages Inter Milan. (Tommy (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

Sorry, but I apparently don't understand you. Regardless of how Inter Milan was protected, the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. Again, that's not justified for the Persib Bandung article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem the effect is that it's permanently semi-protected. And why not justified for the Persib Bandung article? I hope you want to move to semi-protected. Thankyou-- Tommy (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the first time the article's ever been protected, and the disruption is not sufficient to justify permanent protection. And I think that ends this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland

Do you mind doing something about his latest edit on the Somaliland page as it's source misrepresentation and POV? None of his sources mention that 50,000 people died (even then the number is disputed) and the only article that even mentions "indiscriminate" is a partisan website. This edit is also what broke 3RR and the image that he never received consensus for. I would also like ask you to look back at the 3RR Noticeboard for my most recent reply and that of Middayexpress. Other than that, I greatly thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to neutralize it. However, some sources do give a 50,000 figure, but it's often partisan and/or non-specialist ones. I think the number should be sorted out on the talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I left it alone because I thought it was actually mentioned on the BBC article but it turns out it was not. I have gone and removed that part since it's unsourced. AcidSnow (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjutor101

Of course this edit[32] was not a revert, he just added back the removed information, with some more unreliable citations.

Philknight may have discovered the legal threats, see [33] and Fine (penalty). Cannot be found in the present version, as he has removed the warning, block notice, unblock request, and the question. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean that the edit was a revert. I agree now that I've looked back. Doug removed that section in the edit before. I added a note at AN3 for the record. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Basically it was, as it violated the guidelines of editing. Thanks for adding the note. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Result on edit warring removed

The result you added here was removed. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was restored by another administrator. The IP who removed it is the same person who reported you. They're just editing from a different address. For the moment, I haven't blocked either of the two addresses, but please let me know if they become disruptive. Also, in the future, it would be best to give me the diff of the removal, not a link to the section. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for giving the link. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aight 2009

I wonder if you might reconsider this 3RR complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale). I've detailed why on that page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

= Bonnano Crime Family =

In the history of the Bonnano crime family, it clearly states that Salvatore Bonnano founded the Castellammarese Clan in America in the early 1900s and was succeeded by Stefano Magaddino. Salvatore Maranzano was not around, nor in the country at this time so how could he have founded the Bonnano Family. Also at the time Maranzano came in power, which was around 1930, Nicolo Schiro was boss of the family and left it to Maranzano in fear of Giuseppe Masseria. All facts which are stated in the history of the Bonnano family at the bottom of the page. I clearly was trying to correct a wrong, not vandalize any information. Because as of now the page is wrong, the family was around long before Maranzano. The fact that I will be sanctioned for providing a good service is absurd, and I will reframe from helping out any further. Madeguy1931 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) madeguy1931

Dispute resolution

Some weeks ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with @Lugnuts: which resulted in a EWN report, and the requirement by yourself and @EdJohnston: that I enter into dispute resolution or be blocked. The intervening time has been caused primarily by medical necessity and family obligations, but also, I confess, by a certain amount of procrastination and avoidance of an unpleasant task. I've done very little editing in the meantime, but I have thought about the issues involved in the specific conflict, and the situation in general. Since I'm not certain that I have the energy to participate in a drawn-out formal RfC, I'd like instead to offer a compromise.

The issue at hand concerns the formatting of Reference or Notes sections. I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring.

I will monitor your talk page for comments on my proposal. BMK (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I need to hear first from Lugnuts. More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"I would like to suggest as a compromise a pledge on my part that I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever. I will also, in general, try harder to not get caught up in edit-warring" Sounds good to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"More important, I hope you're well or at least on the mend." Yes, thank you, I am "in process": two steps forward and one step back, but hail and hearty for the most part. BMK (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The above statement from User:Beyond My Ken appears to fulfil his promise in the 3RR complaint of 20 September. He is agreeing now that "I will no longer add the sub-heading "Notes" to a References section in which there are no other sub-headings, such as "Bibliography" or whatever." My understanding is that this agreement would be enforceable by admins. Others who commented in the same 3RR report say that BMK has sometimes actively reverted page format to make changes that he considers improvements but may not be considered so by others. I don't know if that part of the dispute is fully resolved. Others who commented in the original 3RR report were User:Glrx and User:Betty Logan. I have pinged them in case they wish to add anything. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Admin EdJohnston's statement "My understanding in that this agreement would be enforceable by admins" is totally unnecessary, as in 9+ years here I have never gone back on a pledge to change my editing behavior.
• Admin EdJohnston's pinging of uninvolved editors to comment on other issues outside of the specific issue involved in the EWN report, after the filer of the report has agreed to closure, appears to be an attempt to turn this discussion into an unofficial RfC/U, when he is fully aware that I am unwilling to participate in an official RfC/U.
• For the edification of admin EdJohnston, user Betty Logan has been a constant critic of mine ever since I filed an SPI which showed that he or she was a sockpuppet of user WalterMitty and user Melody Perkins. CheckUser data was stale, but to me the behavioral evidence was conclusive. The closing admin disgareed, calling it "suggestive but not conclusive" and declined to block because he found no disruptive behavior in Betty Logan's editing. Since then, any time my name come up, Betty Logan is certain to pop up and give her spiel.
• Given these factors, I request that admin EdJohnston block me for the edit warring complaint the amount of time he was considering doing then, in spite of the intervening time period, which was of my own making. I will still stand by my pledge, but I cannot stand by when my honesty, integrity and honor is impugned, and an admin attempts to turn a legitimate discussion into a kangaroo court. BMK (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• You're overreacting, BMK. I would have been okay with just your representation and Lugnuts's agreement, but there's no harm if the other two editors want to comment. It doesn't mean that I'll accept whatever they say at face value. Plus, I can't imagine it does you any good health-wise to get all riled up, and it's not worth it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps I did overreact -- I am, after all, human. Nevertheless, it remains true that a good admin will help to solve problems and not aggravate them, which was the case with EdJohnston's comment here. BMK (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• You're not permitted to be human, BMK; this is Wikipedia. :-) Don't fret about it. Ed, who is one of my favorite administrators, was just being thorough. It's not a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the above except that I hope both editors successfully refrain from edit warring. Glrx (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I will do my best. BMK (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your advice and assistance needed

Hi Bbb23, User:MILH, a single purpose editor with 335 edits, has a history of continuous disruption, edit warring and personal attacks going back to 2006. Over the past month they have levied more than a dozen personal attacks at User:Lfrankbalm who then came to me, via my user page, asking for help. The whole story is outlined very clearly with diffs on User:MILH's talk page beginning with this warning in 2006, continuing with your warning in July 2014, a warning by User:Robert McClenon on Sept 29, a warning from User:Ukexpat on Oct 17th and concluding with my warnings of the past 10 days.[34] Don't be fooled by MILH's complaints about content abuse as all editors active on the Gonzalo Lira article talk page have uniformly supported my editing and clean up of the article which was yesterday nominated for deletion by an uninvolved editor. So far all !votes are for deletion of the article despite my best efforts to add reliable secondary sources and highlight the substandard sources used by MILH. If you think I should file at WP:ANI about the long standing behavioral issue then I will do so, but I feel the situation is so clear cut that it can be handled by a single Admin and we can avoid the drama of ANI. If I'm wrong please let me know and I'll do what needs to be done. Thanks for your time and attention. I await your sage advice. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm going to need some recent diffs of clearly disruptive or attacking behavior. Some of the comments he's made in the past are obviously personal attacks, but they're not recent enough. Some of the later ones you listed on his talk page may be unpleasant, but they don't rise to the kind of personal attacks that most think are sanctionable, particularly in the context of an AfD, which is often, unfortunately rowdy, and, after all, he did create the article, so he's unfortunately bound to take it personally. I have no idea, btw, what his interest in that article is; it seems odd to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, Thanks for taking the time to look at the situation. Just to clarify, all of the diffs I've provided on the User's talk page are before the AfD started so that is not a factor. I'm not even sure the offending editor is even aware of the AfD yet, as they have not commented there. I respect your opinion as an experienced admin but as a veteran contributor I'm dismayed that such a long standing pattern of edit warring, attacks and harassment (despite numerous warnings) is allowed to continue unabated. This user only has 315 edits and at least 10% of them violate one or more of these: WP:NPA, WP:WAR and WP:TALK. As you know WP:HARASS "is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Would you consider at least placing a final warning on the user's talk page? Thanks again for your time. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As a new editor, it was quite an unfortunate experience, to encounter a situation on a minor edit that was totally intractable. My goal with the Lira entry was to make edits to fact and to restore NPOV, these were minor edits as envisioned. I was going to do so anonymously with an IP address; but every minor edit was met with bad faith (to say the least). I decided to create an identity so I could escalate the issues and concerns within a complex process which I did not understand. The issues and concerns were with content (I went to great lengths on Talk not knowing how/what Talk was only to find that I was dealing with bad faith) so it became quite clear that the issues were with a person owning an entry MILH. It took some time for the facts in this matter to become clear. Without question the behavior of the individual in question discourages my efforts as a new editor. This is one of the major reasons by growth in the Wikipedia community has become stunted. I have gone on to edit some very significant pages, both unilaterally, and in partnership cooperation and concurrence with other users as it should be and without incident of any kind. Please know that no doubt whatsoever exists the behavior of User:MILH cannot be tolerated here. It has taken volumes of effort by many administrators-arbitrators-editors to work around intractable and intolerable behavior. How much effort must be made on simple edits on non-controversial subjects of little merit to work around abhorrent behavior? I have to thank Keithbob for working on this issue and concern, which unfortunately has more to do with errant person acting egregiously than the original issue. --Lfrankblam 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War general sanctions

Hey Bbb23. You closed the community discussion which enacted the SCW general sanctions. When you did so, you said that they would mirror Arbcom's discretionary sanctions (if I recall correctly). The notices for Arbcom's DS can be issued by anyone, currently. This has led to a discussion at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. Do you have an opinion as to who (admin or not) is allowed to issue notices under SCWGS? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I won't be able to get to this today, Ed. It's been a busy day for me in my real life, and I just went on-wiki a few moments ago at the end of my day. I'm also tired, so, frankly, I'd rather do easier things for the short time I'm here before turning in.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for your professional review

Dear friend, there is currently a discussion on interpretation of the sanction warning policy within the framework of WP:SCWGS topic sanctions. Since me and you were pretty much among the initiators of the sanction tools (me as proposing editor and you as administrator), i would very much like your input at this discussion. Apparently several non-administrator users began issuing warnings and logging them officially at WP:SCWGS (including warning me), with no violations of 1RR and no WP:ANI procedures, which seemed to me very awkward. Up until 9 October 2014, only administrators (including you) had been issuing warnings and logging them - usually as a result of misconduct such as disruptive editing or edit-warring. However, some editors suddenly decided that official warnings are "free" and began delivering them with no control (and no reason). I assume you would agree that being officially warned and logged at WP:SCWGS is pretty much significant, because a warning is a kind of black listing, and once i remember that you cleared my log, when i was incorrectly added there last year.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See below.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Further to my email

Here's the link where it was discussed.[35]. Current discussion at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I'm sure Doug is watching the Peyton Manning show, like I am. Not looking so good for those Chargers, Drmies (talk)

Deletion - incorrectly did speedy delection

hi bbb23

I apologize; the deletion process rules are confusing to me. Could you help walk me through how to "take [an article] to AfD"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virsingh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

please help

Hi Bbb23,

I am new user on Wikipedia and I really want you to help me know as why previous article - on 'Balkrishna' was deleted in detail and what is the meaning of - (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event) , this is the reason I got when some one deleted this article of mine. Shaliniaggrawal (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hail Hydra!"

So, after the recent sockpuppet case against COMC, another long-inactive user has popped up again at FPC, following almost a year of inactivity. Behaviourally, very similar, including an apparent hatred of Stefan2, a focus on art (including van Gogh, COMC's apparent favourite), and apparently becoming active during a relative lull in COMC's editing. Do you think this is quacking loudly enough yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, quacking moderately. The things I noticed - other than the obvious FPC focus - have to do with timing, not just between Sextet and COM, but also Marinka. Sextet started contributing almost at exactly the same time as Marinka left their last message on their talk page. In addition, the cross-check of Sextet's and COM's edits in January and February of this year were striking, although I looked at it manually (there's a damned tool that would make this easier, but I can't find it at the moment).

To help me evaluate this, please provide two items. First, some diffs of COM evincing the same hostility toward Stefan as Sextet. Second, some diffs showing COM's love of Van Gogh.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a whole page: User:Coat_of_Many_Colours/Stefan (all edits to this this point are COMC's). We also have such choice statements as "I'm aware that Stefan2 is far too busy tagging files for deletion to actually do anything constructive in the way of maintaining them" and "I'm no longer interested in stepping into the same lift with you Stefan because I'm pretty sure now it doesn't go all the way up to the top". This is about the time the suspected sock we're discussing popped up.

As for van Gogh: COMC nominated this, and commented on various FPCs related to van Gogh (1, 2, 3, 4; I'll let you look at their extensive comments, but of note is owning a book on the artist). Elsewhere the editor mentioned being interested in attending an exhibition of the artist's works.

There's also behaviour similarities, such as the articles being worked on in user space, with the same title, with a similar referencing style, and being left underdeveloped for a lengthy period of time (compare User:A Sextet Short of PG(2,57)/sandbox and User:Coat of Many Colours/sandbox 2, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

?

And the: If there's more socking, the block of the master will become indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC) ? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coat of Many Colours ‎Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, read it with burning interest and fascination! Thanks and God bless. Hafspajen (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska

Thanks for taking care of matters on Galerie Gmurzynska.

Given the length of protection, and given that the current state of the article is that the lede is mostly made about talking about them being investigated (and given that the article does discuss the ownership of the Galerie, and thus this becomes a WP:BLP issue), I wonder if it might be wise to cut this down to a stub for now, rather than leaving it in this state. (Please note that I have neither been editing either for the all-promo version or the all-attack version; this isn't so much a WP:WRONGVERSION matter as a BLP concern.) Not being an admin, I cannot make this edit myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I don't see it as that big a problem that it requires removal. Mostly it's about problems with the gallery rather than the owner. The owner would be posssibly involved by implication. Still, I understand your concern, so I have two suggestions. One is to make an edit request on the talk page and let another admin evaluate it. The other is to take it to BLPN. If there is a consensus for removal, I would be willing to remove it at that point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, every gallery that has a decade long history, has some disputes and legal cases to resolve during that history, similar to any company. Nevertheless, galleries are exhibiting and presenting art to the public and also selling art to collectors as well as working together with artists, estates and museums, giving out loans for small exhibitions and sometimes very important retrospectives. The question, would be, why an encyclopaedic article has to deal almost solely and primarily with unverified facts and having its foundational based completely on legal cases? Without writing any facts about its exhibitions throughout decades, including important catalogs, museum shows and discoveries that has been made by a gallery. Users like Grammophone create their account on the sole purpose of discrediting work of others being an SPA to edit everything related to Galerie Gmurzynska. If one will look at Grammophone's (talk) contribs, these are only based on the articles Yves Klein, Nikolai Khardzhiev and Galerie Gmurzynska with the sole purpose to modify anything related to the gallery, discredit it and shed negative light on some persons associated with it. Thus, I would like to propose, to delete all for an encyclopaedia irrelevant information and *stubify* the article with short and simple neutral information, when it was founded, what it shows and where it is, as also proposed by Nat Gertler (talk). Furthermore, I do not understand why Grammophone for example deletes all the neutral sources I have added before, like the representation of the estates or the catalog of Burliuk's exhibition in 1966. I do not think that the purpose of this version is an encyclopaedic one. Art&Design3000 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Far from being "unverified", the facts in this article are all taken from publicly available sources, mostly major international newspapers such as the Telegraph and the New York Times. The gallery and its own representatives are themselves quoted in some of these. I would argue that this history is certainly not "similar to any company" or art gallery, but a unique part of the history of Galerie Gmurzynska. (If the published articles are wrong in their facts it is for Gmurzynska to take action against those publications; if the incidents described are unremarkable and happen to all galleries, there is no need to suppress them). Art&Design3000 seems to regard Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. It is strange that a supposedly "independent" editor insists on using promotional material, but thinks that the smuggling of a major Russian archive and a raid by customs authority in relation to an alleged 7M Swiss francs VAT evasion is not significant and should be kept hidden. The various activities of the gallery are documented in a neutral way, without authorial opinion, with most of the content taking the form of quotations from the cited sources. As a suggestion of how to resolve the "edit warring", I leave it to administrators to decide what is and is not significant in this history, and whether they want to add some of what strikes this author as promotional material to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on this matter Bbb23. I note that this organization is once again using multiple IP addresses to restore its own self-promotional version of this page and to suppress publicly available, widely-documented material about its history. I have taken on board your comments and edited to produce a version which does not lead with the current VAT evasion case and which includes a reasonable version of the other side of the "edit warring". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Grammophone and Art&Design3000, both of you have reverted twice on October 21. Consider this your only warning. If either of you reverts again, you risk being blocked without notice. Please take the discussion to the talk page (there's already a topic and a suggested tentative solution). Art&Design3000 has commented, but Grammophone has not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A third IP address is being used in order to suppress material this organization wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.

The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.

As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I welcome Administrators' views on what I have written here and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version. I have not engaged in Talk with Art&Design3000 and his aliases because I do not see that as having any potential to produce an accurate version of the gallery history, given the editing methods it uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

LikeFunding deletion

Hi, I see you deleted my page...sorry it had a lot of room to improve. ¿Could you restore the content to my sandbox so I could work on it? Thanks a lot in advance! 1982basiu (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1982basiu, I've moved the article to User:1982basiu/LikeFunding. I strongly urge you to follow the procedures at WP:AFC before moving it to article space so more experienced editors may review it and give you feedback.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Planned block evasion

Editor Grammophone (talk · contribs), whom you recently blocked, has contacted me off-wiki and stated his intention to evade the block should a certain other account be allowed to continue to edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

NatGertler, I assume you mean by e-mail. If that's the case, could you please forward me the e-mail? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat, did Grammophone use the Wikipedia interface to send you the e-mail? If not, can you share with me how he knew your e-mail address (you don't have to)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He first emailed me on Aug 30, in regard to editing the page under discussion. I don't believe he used the Wikipedia interface; there's nothing in the email suggesting that he did. As I edit under my real name, and my name is unique and my contact information findable, I assume he located it somewhere. This is not someone I know outside of Wikipedia-related dealings. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV lock

I know this is WP:WRONG, but on the NPOV policy page you locked a version that's only been in the article for a few months and a majority of editors disagree with it, as appose to the version that's been in there for over 4 years. WP:CONLEVEL applies here and no discussion on the merits ever took place on that new addition until now. Since this article needs to reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community, I hope you'll look it over and consider it's current status, as I don't believe there is any consensus for the current addition which is locked in policy. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 13:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Normally, this would be brought up on the talk page as an edit request. I should add that if there wasn't any objection at the time of the addition, it's hard for me to consider restoring the policy to prior to that version. Discussion now, post-protection, isn't quite the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Bbb23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!--McVeigh (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coolguy1029384765

Help me out. The subject of a sock puppet investigation (who admitted his puppetry and has been allowed to continue editing under his new name, AirportExpert) decided that he didn't like the continuing existence of the report concerning his original account, so he renamed it as, and moved it to, a new page that named a non-existent editor instead. I moved the sock puppet report back to the proper page, under the correct name, and sought speedy delete of the redirect left over at the invented page. I thought this would be clear from the article history and my edit summary. I appreciate that there might be another, more proper, way to clean up this little mess, but leaving the fake page as a redirect back to the original doesn't make sense to me, and so I'm asking that you expand a bit on your edit summary removing the speedy delete request. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your mistake was in doing the move. You are not an SPI clerk (I am), nor are you an administrator; so, it's not your job. When I declined the speedy, I didn't have the time or energy to look at it carefully. Now that you've filled in the blanks, I see no harm in deleting it, although I'll use a different criterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, a priori, how undoing the disruptive move of an SPI page is any different than undoing a disruptive move in article space. Previously when he blanked the SPI report, I restored it, as I would any vandalism. But, if SPI vandalism is the province of clerks and admins I'm happy to leave it them. Thanks for cleaning up that last page. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but reverting clear vandalism on an SPI page (an edit) seems different to me from creating a redirect and later asking for its deletion. The latter is a bit more invasive. It's also possible that I'm a bit sensitive on SPI issues as I'm often reverting well-meaning editors who take it upon themselves to act as admins or clerks at SPI. I've certainly never seen this particular problem come up before, though. And I certainly never meant to imply that you did anything in bad faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly can understand that. You probably see a lot of problems made worse by folks who were only trying to help. A good lesson for me to take away from all this is to explain clearly what I'm doing when I'm undertaking more than a straight-up revert - JohnInDC (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello! You deleted my page on the Westview Observatory for its failure to meet Wikipedia's standards. It was a work-in-progress, but I'm ignorant and didn't follow Wikipedia's protocols. Do you have the authority to move the former page to my Sandbox so I can keep working on it there to bring it up to code? If not, please let me know and I'll start from scratch again. Thanks for your efforts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlemagne920 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to User:Charlemagne920/Westview Observatory for you. I commented out the image. You're not permitted to have non-free images in user space. I know you say that you took the image and the copyright therefore belongs to you, but I'd rather play safe. If it's moved to article space, the image can be uncommented out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your support for and mentoring of an editor.

Hi Bbb23; A short comment about your support for and mentoring of an editor who is continuing to use his time for baiting and edit warring with new editors. The same editor is apparently continuing to edit war at the Ukraine page where he has created a virtual black-out on all new information concerning the civil war there taking place for almost a year. Ukraine is presently going through its worst crisis since Chernobyl, but the editor whom you appear to be mentoring has blocked all attempts to update the material since last spring (for four months). I have made what amounts to a one sentence edit today to update at least partially the state of the civil war and ask if you could look at it at the page for Ukraine. That editor whom you appear to be mentoring is edit warring against it as if at the drop of a hat. FelixRosch (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which editor?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IP Socking, warring, factual errors

As you seem to be active and this partly overlaps with AN3 can you check this guy out? as first reported at AIV. He was first introducing deliberate factual errors [36] [37] but he was also giving misleading edit summaries ('minor edit') and top logged out edits [38] to hide it from watch list (clearly not a new user). But since he mentioned "POV" to mask another removal, I didn't know if to revert / report him until I confirmed it. That report is unactioned since last morning and this user has come back and violated 3RR and another top logged out edit [39]. Blanks talk page warnings [40]. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

He clearly breached WP:3RR, and he made the fourth revert after you warned him, so I've blocked him for 31 hours. However, in the future, please file a report at WP:AN3 rather than coming directly to an administrator who has no prior involvement with this issue. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure and thanks, I was trying not to be the one filing same report all over the noticeboards after doing it at AIV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but AIV was not the proper venue for this kind of problem. It's generally reserved for much more blatant vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your relentless efforts to keep us editors in check, and for doing that with fairness and attention to detail. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Cwobeel. Please be careful, though. You take certain risks, which I believe you do in good faith, but it raises the real possiblity of getting you into trouble. It's not worth it. There are other ways to tackle content issues that are less risky.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Thanks for the reminder. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Q: Closed discussion

If somebody has edited a discussion with the addition of more than 1,700 characters, few minutes after it was closed by other user. Such edit can be removed? Or archived discussion can be edited for making a reply. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Far too hypothetical for me to answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A1

Yesterday another user said I should have used A1, and the article was pretty similar in that it had little content or info, that's why I thought it should be A1. I'll study the CSD tags a bit more and stick with proposed deletion for now, the CSD descriptions in the citation interface are a bit obscure to determine the exact situations when to use them. Thanks - Kiwuser (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to Dr Mahmoud Kalid Almsafir, A1 did not apply. A7 did.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice photo

The picture on your page is very beautiful, I just noticed it! Last summer I stayed at a "Château" - hotel like that in France for a few days... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that

There was an edit conflict on the ANI thread and I didn't notice that the topic had been closed just as I was commented on it. I didn't mean to revert the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry for my harsh edit summary. I restored your last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of talk comments

Regarding your removal of my comments on User talk:Patrol forty with the comment "there's no point to this - if you wish to file a report, do so)"[41]

There actually is a point to this. There were suspicions by multiple users that this was a sock account. Should Patrol forty/MickMacNee attempt to return in the future, likely given their history, there should be a guide for editors to work from should that day comes. It does not seem there would be a point to "file a report" at this time as this user is currently banned.--Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't make a random accusation tying account A to account B. If you have the behavioural evidence then submit it. Even when filed late, SPI reports serve as a log of events and they can tie in to any future happenings. OTOH, if you don't have the evidence then you shouldn't say it. Either way, there really doesn't seem to be any need for the comment that you made at that talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is "strong behavior evidence" isn't exactly an accusation and it isn't "random." The two behavior histories are almost identical. Anyway, per WP:TALK, there was an objection to the removal of comments. --Oakshade (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You've now been reverted by two administrators with an explanation on your talk page. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Sitush and Bbb23 are supportive of a Sock Puppet Investigation SPI being opened. I will assist if needed if I can get my computer up and running properly, otherwise it may be a week before I can help.--MONGO 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sitush, but I wouldn't draw that conclusion from my revert or comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown made a good comment on my talk page regarding this and I won't argue for the suspicion to be placed on the banned user's talk page. The "We're done here" was a little caddy and not necessary.--Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Locked page revert request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persib_Bandung&diff=632168615&oldid=632167579 Removed a request to discuss this and it should be restored. I can't revert it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it stays the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hello Please unlock the Mackenzie Ziegler page, to move Mack Z to these side. Thanks --Maintrance -- 11.52 October 22, 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintrance (talk • contribs)

• please help me out to create a page on mahika sharma she is well known model, social activist and actress from the northeastern state Assam, India you can google her and can see many proper link of her and she us always seen in newspaper article. Please help I dont know why people are creating issues over her. She is controversial girl and put many non working social groups packoff... she has worked for her state and we her followers want to see her on wiki pls help.. Thanks hope you will help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiperson (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gage Goulding

Can you see if Gage Goulding is the same now as it was when you deleted it the first time, and if so, delete it again? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's similar but not identical. It's generally my practice that I don't speedily delete the same article twice but let another administrator evaluate it. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them. I did add a G11 tag to the article, and we'll let it run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

deletion

hello this is showdowyemen you deleted my page in 06:19, 3 November 2014 what can i do to activate it . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.31.183.34 (talk)

I assume you're talking about Dr. Mansour Mohammed Al-Aqil. Before I make any decision, I need you to log into your registered account and ask me again. Indeed, you should not edit at Wikipedia without logging in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive edits

Thank you for recently intervening to temporarily block User:BlueboyLI and a seemingly related IP because of disruptive edits to Lee Zeldin and Tim Bishop. Just wanted to let you know that another unregistered IP has come along and made the exact same reverts. Don't know if it's the same user or not but the pattern is exactly the same. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are two different IP addresses in different ranges but which share similar characteristics. I've blocked both IPs. I semi-protected the Bishop article (the Zeldin article had already been semi-protected by another administrator), and I blocked Blueboy for a month from now, although my guess is he's heading for an indefinite block. It's not your usual block evasion. Thanks for the heads up. I've now put the two pages on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you check this slow edit war

Can you check Talk:Vishva_Hindu_Parishad#Swami_Lakshmanananda? The editor is expressly purging referenced content initially added by another editor long ago, which I added back and he keeps removing it while repeating that he is not satisfied by response on the talk page discussion. Without bothering for a consensus, he removes it immediately after putting his comment without waiting for a response. He agreed to the reliability of the content and suggested a different position in the article but purged it yet again along with references. I have given a warning on his talk page and given the diff of the five reverts he has done so for in the article talk page discussion. Thank you. Note: We have met before at my talk page and you had recently blocked me for 72 hours for edit warring. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the content dispute. Nor am I going to take any action based on your post here. I can see the edit warring, though, on the article, and all I can say is if it persists, you and the other editor risk being blocked if, for example, this is taken to WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, he has revereted yet again. I am not touching the article but I have brought this on AN3 page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53

You must have gone off-line shortly before my reply. I had a look myself and found out how to start the process of reporting another sock under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. I assumed that any new reports can directly go onto this page and don't have to go through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which was an incorrect assumption. There is however nothing I could find on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53 telling people to do so rather then reporting it there. Can this be addressed? Regards, Calistemon (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Calistemon, I did go off-wiki. In fact, I had this wonderful dinner of Cornish game hen in a raspberry sauce with rice and asparagus with lime butter. :-) It looks like you managed to do a great job without me, though. The edit notice that you see is intended for editors once a case is already open. Most people go to WP:SPI to open an investigation or to add to an existing investigation, so I'm not sure your particular "problem" has ever arisen. I can see how a bullet point could be added to the edit notice, though, that would address your issue and point you in the right direction, but I'm not sure if others would agree it was needed. If you think you're not alone in this, why don't you raise the question at WT:SPI and see what kind of response you get?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice dinner. I've got a spare rooster you can have for another one, you just have to fatten him up, chop him and pluck him. Or, alternatively, just send me the recipe and I will let you know how he tasted. In regards to the SPI, a note might be helpful also I probably won't make the same mistake again. Thanks for your help, Calistemon (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Question as to why page Ownage Pranks was deleted in 2012, to which you then in 2013, added on to why it was deleted, can we pull this page back out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golde62 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same person who originally created the article, InformedHamster (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive users

Can you have an eye on red link users User talk:Wikiwikiperson and User talk:GiorgosY? Their edits are mostly disruptive, the former of them violating at times civility and no personal attack prohibition as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahika Sharma and the latter (an admin, I am not sure whom but I think it was you, warned that user before) insisting on POV edits in Cyprus-related articles... I hate to do this but being kind does not always solve these issues. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As for Wikiwikiperson, I've deleted the article, closed the AfD, and warned the user. Let me know if there are further disruptions. As for GiorgosY, you're going to have to through whatever channels are appropriate if you believe the user's conduct warrants sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see my addition at Wikiwikiperson's talk page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For the love of Wikigod what channels will serve to work with such a user? Thanks anyway. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Hello. I'd like to notify you about the editor User:TySoltaur who has been randomly and recklessly reverting my every edits, refusing to discuss the problem and beginning an edit war on the article List of fictional dogs in animation reverting not only the removal of characters that belong in the literature section, but additional characters and character information as well. I cannot understand what the user is being difficult about. Please take care of the edit warrior as soon as you can. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

the characters you continue to remove are fictional animals in animation, and thus belong in the article. Please cease confusing opinion with fact, which judging from your usertalk page, you have a problem distinguishing between the two. TySoltaur (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you're both edit-warring to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No editing warring from my side, I assure you. The removal of valid references and additional characters with links and authors does not serve as a constructive edit. Once I make my next edit, you can be the judge of that. Deltasim (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are free to add characters. However, the ones you continuously removed, i.e. Balto, Jasper, et al, do belong there. They are fictional dogs IN ANIMATION. Balto is in the fictionalized animated film of the same name, Jasper is in the animated TV show Family Guy, etc. TySoltaur (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why I shouldn't remove characters that hold absolutely no notability as per the first sentence in the article. You're taking the "belong" statement too literally. And of course if I'm free to add characters and references, why revert all my edits instead of the removals? Deltasim (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you offer reason why you believe they are 'not notable'? You cannot remove based on personal opinion. The fictional Balto, while only loosely based on the real-life Balto, is very notable. And the Paw Patrol characters is from the children's cartoon show. And as it seems to be a very popular cartoon, I find it to be notable as well. TySoltaur (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've been asked to weigh in here, but I'm not sure I understand the dispute and I agree with Bbb23 that edit warring is something that usually takes at least participants to engage in. There is always time to fix things after a proper discussion. Regarding the content issues, the lede of the article (such as it is) contains a clear definition of list membership. Nothing should be added that does not meet every element of this definition. Regarding list member notability, I know that is the basis for list membership in list of fictional dogs to which this list is described as subsidiary. So each item on the list should be notable. The way to demonstrate notability is via reliable sources. There shouldn't be much dispute if we stick to the basic principles like this. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I started a discussion at Talk:List of fictional dogs in animation#List membership. Let's not get into content discussions on Bbb23's talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing deleted article

Hi Bbb23, A fellow writer and I were adding to the page on Lourdes Casal, but it got deleted for not explaining significance. We have about 3 more sections with details on biography, career, and publications + credible sources that show significance. She is a Cuban American writer with multiple publications, and there are academics writing about her work. I think the issue with the Wiki page was that it did not discuss her significance. How can we revive this page (so we can edit it appropriately) and resubmit it for evaluation? Looking forward to hearing from you. Mantisshrimp (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want, I can WP:USERFY it and put it in your user space. Then, after you're done drafting it, you can submit it to WP:AFC. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do that. Thanks so much. Mantisshrimp (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Mantisshrimp/Lourdes Casal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nathanbobby

Hi

Just to say thanks for your assistance with Nathanbobby's SPI. I was just a little concerned he had created more accounts in anticipation of this one being blocked. Thanks again 5 albert square (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, 5 albert square, I'm just glad you're not annoyed with me for declining the CU request twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just me being over cautious :-) 5 albert square (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz edit reverts

When googling Aaron Swartz the first 2 sentences on wikipedia appear. Do you really think its ok to define this mans life by him committing suicide? Why don't we put Robbin Williams suicide right at the top of his page too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrazerKirkman (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You came back from a 2+ year hiatus just to do that? First, what comes up on Google is not a basis for changing an article. Second, Robin Williams is a horrible analogy. Third, you didn't even do a good job of moving the material. Finally, if you don't like it, take to the article talk page and see what other editors think. I should note that it's a very sensitive article. Please learn to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

possible sock?

Since you just blocked Kube8 I thought it best to report this to you. I just got a post from a brand new user on my talk page that is a possible block-evading sock. I'm never sure on these things so best to leave it to the experts. User:Bonn56 and the diff is right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed the new account and added a week to Kube8's block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Kube8 is asking for another unblock request... I have no problem with that at all fwiw. As long as he makes no more socks, and stops the edit wars I'm fine with the unblock. I'd rather him be a useful member of the tennis community than a permanent disgruntled editor. We are discussing some of his points at tennis project. He should be aware that nothing may come of it as far as changing our guidelines (or it may be painfully slow), but we'd welcome new input and rational ideas. I know all this is up to your judgement, but I wanted to express my thoughts. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're very generous, but, frankly, I think he should sit out his block.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung

Hi, thank you very much for protecting the article. I just want to make an advice to revert the article to this version, since thats the last correct version before the second edit war started on November 1, 2014. If you can do that, it would be great. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, MbahGondrong, but it stays the way it is, and it shouldn't change after the lock expires without a very clear consensus. Anyone who edit-wars after the lock may be blocked without any notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the case is that we already had somekind of consensus as seen here. But on November 2, 2014, Saya Ganteng reverted contents that in the consensus was seened as not needed. In my point of view, he is the one that needs to be warned, since me and Walter Görlitz are just reverting back to the trimmed version that was agreed in the talk page. Please take that into consideration. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please give a detailed explanation, on the article's why unsupported material should be included in the article? Your opinion that "it shouldn't change after the lock expires without a very clear consensus" belies the fact that it was a change of material that already had a clear consensus and no references were added to support the idea. This wouldn't happen to be a bias against me would? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i don't agree with the consensus at the talkpage. And He just talks both and other. I also see, in another article, long. But that's okay. And why this should not be at the page, though sourced. Thankyou for your respons. --Saya itu Ganteng (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung

Hi, you can change Position to Champions? You can see source on 2014 Persib Bandung season. Thankyou. Brothers. :D.

And you can see photos source Affiliated at official website Indonesia League.

http://ligaindonesia.co.id/index.php/photo/isl2012/Kerjasama-Persib-bersama-Venforet-Kofu-392/ thankyou, bro. > Saya itu Ganteng (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to make an edit request on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Another sock for you

Hi Bbb23. Well done with the unmasking of the multiple socks of Afro-Eurasian. I was busy with somenthing else when I noticed the disappearance of an editor replaced by a new one 16 minutes later, editing the sames pages. The new one is none other than Afro-Eurasian himself. Take a look here. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I am not mistaken, going by the succession of dates of accounts created and dates last active and the same pages over and over (Santería, Uruguay, Latin people), I guess this is the same guy here and here. Good luck. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia, this is too complicated to be handled on my talk page. I recommend reopening the SPI with your allegations and evidence. If it turns out there is an earlier master, that can be sorted out there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's unfortunately far beyond my capabilities. Especially seeing thta the SPI is already archived. And like I said, I happened to stumble across it. So, I will just drop it. Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's archived is no impediment. SPIs are opened up as cases or reports by date. Then eventually, each case is archived. Look at the archive, and you'll see what I mean. If you want to open a new report, the easiest thing to do is just go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions to open a case with the same master. By specifying the same master, the software will automatically open up a new report just under the part that now says it's archived, and the process will recommence. I'm willing to help you if you wish. However, I can't comment at this point whether you have sufficient evidence to allege the socking, but if you decide to open it and you acknowledge that this is new for you, you'll be treated with more lenience if the report is insufficient. Notwithstanding all of ths, nothing compels you to do anything, so if you feel more comfortable letting it go, that's perfectly understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. That is very helpful. Part of the reason why I am not particularly keen on following this up is that one of the supposed socks predates the investigation (2013) and the two recent ones stopped editing in May(?) and the other one in August. Judging from the track record, by now this guy has moved on to other names. Though I'd be willing to bet that by following his passions, such as Uruguay and Santería, we would have him. Again thanks for your offer to help. seeing that there is no urgency in this, I'll keep it aside for now and when I have more time I will come back to it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

By this IP. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but he hasn't been warned enough to block. You should have left a warning when he vandalized the Cuban page the first time and then warned him yet again when he vandalized your user page. Those warnings help justify a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Eric Holder semi-protect

Bbb23, I've already addressed concerns about User:Malik Shabazz' edits and behavior at the appropriate messageboard. As far as my involvement is concerned, that's where this should be resolved. I've made no additional edits at Eric Holder since reporting him. In fact, he continued to make edits even after. So unfortunately, your semi-protect isn't blocking the relevant person and isn't serving the readers who currently access this newsworthy article.

Again, for my part, I'm done editing there. My intent was just to edit one single word anyway! Sad but true. Review the complaint. Then kindly either semi-protect the article for all users, or remove the SP altogether. As I said, not for me. Because I'm done there and really don't have a dog in this fight anymore beyond that editor's behavior. So as I was involved leading to the semi-protect, you can remove it now for the other editors/readers/users of the project. Or not. Your choice. But I think it's the right thing to do. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Plus I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in, B. Very good price! Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I struggled to find the usefulness of your comment, Softie. Then I discovered you were a Duke alum. So I realized there was none. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User: NasiKK

Bbb23, just so you know, NasiKK is a community banned editor named Roman888. Even the most cursory level of due diligence would have shown you that. --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Drmargi, I guess I'm not capable of such cursory diligence either, or I just can't smell sock here. I blocked that "trash" account, but hey, help us out here, rather than piss on someone who at least had the decency to work the 3RR board and block your edit warrior. Or, if you think they're a sock, why are you reporting them on 3RR? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at the 3RR report? Of course not, or you'd know I didn't file it. Did either of you look at his prior SPI cases? Clearly not, or his being a sock would be clear as glass given his obsession with Malaysian topics, particularly the Prime Minister (thus the user ID). Never mind. He's blocked now. --Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ComC master

• I'm about 99% sure Coat of Many Colours (SPI) was a sock of Rinpoche (SPI). Aside from an email I sent to Drmies a few weeks back (I'll forward it to you if necessary), we have User:RobvanderWaal, who is blocked on Wikipedia as a sock of Rinpoche but went on Commons to nominate the controversial September Morn image (then another file by Chabas here). When SM was promoted, the Rob sock gave a reply which dripped of sarcasm (just like ComC). I'm not sure if we need to reclassify any of the sock categories, or whatnot, but I'm fairly certain that, if Rinpoche was Coat's master, there may be an impact on article space. Sorry to keep bothering you; I'm not up to speed with handling LTA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ponyo, the last of the socks at the Rinpoche SPI was blocked a fairly long time ago. However, RobvanderWaal (talk · contribs · count), although blocked in 2012, posted to his talk page last month. I know that the CUs on CoMC are difficult, but is there anything you can do to confirm a connection between Rob and CoMC or his socks? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• What makes all these socks and their masters so sad is the pathetic lies. ChildofMidnight's socks, with their whining; Michael Paul Heart's socks with their "oh I just happened to walk by this article and had a version from last year printed out, footnotes and bold and italics and all". What did CoMC have? A terminal disease? A history of abuse? Hafspajen called them a meanie? Pff. I wonder what these people do if they take a shit and happen to look behind them. "Oh! I wonder who left that there! Why didn't they flush? Might as well wipe my ass while I'm sitting here." Drmies (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my Drmies, the visual is horrifying, but the sentiment is spot on. @Bbb23:, I found something interesting, but will email you to avoid WP:BEANS. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, there is some technical evidence linking Rinpoche to Coat of Many Colours. In SPI parlance I would call it a strong  Possible. I'm not sure what benefit there would be in linking the two at such a late date; however, if one was to pursue the possibility strong behavioural evidence would be necessary to increase the probability from "possible" to "likely". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Ponyo's follow-up, my inclination is to leave the two masters separate. One question to Crisco 1492: what impact on article space are you thinking of?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• If this editor was Ripoche, then articles like Race Riot (Warhol) would qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Hence the possible impact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, emailing behavioural evidence to Ponyo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the G5 is that big a deal. Pursuant to Drmies's rule on socks and reverts, you only revert something if it's no good, not just because it was done by a sock. I haven't looked at the article you cite, but if it's deletable independently of whether it was created by a sock, then it can go down the tubes on its merits. Another possibility is you simply fudge the G5 and delete it anyway. Did I say that? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I wouldn't tag it (I don't particularly feel comfortable with that criterion) but the possibility would be opened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Evading block/falsifying articles

Hello. This IP is falsifying Afghans in Iran. I'm reporting it to you because I noticed that you blocked this IP and I checked the IP location which is the same city, both IPs are editing and writing exactly as this person.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for three months (like the last one) and reblocked the named account indefinitely (should have done it in September). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Report at AN3

Is it ok for me to archive the completed reports at the Edit War Noticeboard including this one? The IP said he won't reply to my messages anymore so it seems that we are done here. That being said, it would have just been filled with more personal attacks. Just like in his last reply which were all directed at me. Oddly this was all ignored by the admins that observe this Noticebaord. AcidSnow (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you mean move it to the actual archives, it would be better to let the bot do that in the normal course. If you mean, closing the discussion, I'm happy to do that for you so it has the impact of an admin. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do so, I am done explains how he does not understand policies on Wikipedia. Nor have I seen one make so many ignorant decisions. So I don't plan on continuing with him anymore if he plans to return for some more "education" from me. AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and Ed also collapsed the venom.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you too EdJohnston! AcidSnow (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Home alone

The edits that I made to the page were important because it explained why Kevin was left home alone in the first place. Without setting up the correct context, the page is not very straight forward to readers who might not have seen the movie. Also, I did not type any spoilers. The edits were not malicious, vandalism, or anything like that. The information I put in is relevant. Please edit the information that I entered rather than just deleting it completely if you find fault with it.

No one's accusing you of vandalism. Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers, but that's not the issue. The article has a very troubled history when it comes to the plot. It's a fairly old movie, and yet, periodically, particularly as it gets closer to Christmas, people feel compelled to add more details to the plot. They are always reverted because the plot is at its maximum length now. If you can find a way to improve the plot (very subjective I might add) without adding any words, meaning either a loss or a net zero effect, other editors can then review it to see if they agree with you. Otherwise, I suggest you find another article that interests you to work on. There are plenty.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SPIs

Thanks for clarifying things for me at those two SPIs. As surely you can tell I'm still new to this and am learning as I go along. I like to think being overly cautious is better route for me, though. My main goal is to just help reduce the backlog, I haven't seen {{admin dashboard}} without highlighted backlog in a while (for SPIs, that's over 50 open cases). With time, I hope to work my way to being a regular, and people like you are certainly helping me gain confidence and I very much appreciate it. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We're overlapping - I left a message on your talk page as you were posting this here. .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for your action on User:Fanofvan ! PKT(alk) 18:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Cardone

Why did you revert my edits on Grant Cardone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie78 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Aussie78, that article has a troubled history, although it hasn't seen much activity in a while. You're a brand new account whose only interest thus far seems to be in that article. Those things set off red flags for me, and at first glance it looked like your edits might have been biased. I've looked a little more carefully, and I was probably wrong about my conclusion. Nonetheless, I wanted to start with a different basis. The layout of that article has always been unconventional in terms of the style of most wiki articles, so without changing any of the substance I reorganized it. Things like his religious beliefs and family relationships as an adult should be in a "Personal life" section, not in a section called "Biography". Although many people use "Biography" as a section header, I rarely like it as an article about a person is effectively a biography. I also didn't see that someone of his relatively low notability should have separate sections for each aspect of his career, so I collapsed those pieces into one section.

I think we share the belief that the article is poorly sourced, mostly to self-published sources, which are okay for some things but not for anything that is self-serving. I believe you were marking some of those sources in the article. Why don't you go back to it? If I revert anything, I'll do it with greater care and explain it to you so we can talk about it.

I hope that helps. One more thing: please learn to WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages (like this one). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I am new to this and I do appreciate your help. I have seen your edits and they look much better - my reason for focusing on this article first was to take it one at a time. Maybe you can help me out and suggest another article for me to practice editing on? Aussie78 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, what do I do with poorly sourced information? Leave it? For example there is a reference on the same article linking to Linkedin. Again, I am new to this but I doubt that LinkedIn is a source that Wikipedia accepts. Please clarify. Aussie78 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at what I just did with the linkedIn source and the rest of that short paragraph. As I mentioned above, for such a small article, it's very poorly sourced. As for suggestions, what interested you about the Cardone article? That might help give me some ideas.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A friend was reading one of his books. His work seems alright but from looking at the Wikipedia page I did see some issues. I thought that I could make quite a contribution on this article. By the way, reference 5 seems to be dead. What do I do in that case? Aussie78 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warrior is back to reverting

Hello, I emailed you about this, but I don't know if you saw the messages. Yesterday soon after you let Prisonermonkeys off the hook for being a serial 3RR violator, they proceeded to make an uncivil comment on the relevant talk page "Now all you need to do is understand how an encyclopedia works, and we might actually get somewhere." and then this morning they proceeded to revert my edits and remove my citations [42]. They could have easily added the plot section without removing the section. You said "any more reverts of any kind in this article may be met with blocks without notice", so I ask you to stay true to your word. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, I did see your e-mails. However, first, I rarely respond to e-mails by return e-mail. Second, my time on-wiki has been severely restricted the last couple of days because of issues in my real life. In any event, although PM's comment on the talk page was condescending, I wouldn't block him for that. However, the revert is another matter, and I've blocked him for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries about the delays, in retrospect I should have been a little more patient for a response as I've been a bit strapped for Wikipedia time myself too. Anyways, thank you for your actions. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked editor is back

An editor you blocked for a week [43] is back and mucking about on a good article. [44] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've acted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlfredKamon.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

2016 Persib Bandung season

Hi, I have proposed this article for deletion with the given reason on the aticle. It has passed 7 days and I was thinking that maybe you as an admin could delete the article. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

re: fixed my name - you do know those things after the user names don't work?

Hey, I didn't know that. Is there a place that explains this somewhere? I'm not sure what you mean. In the edit window, the user name links looked valid, but it doesn't work? EChastain (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want those kinds of links, there are a whole bunch of templates (not the one you used) that produce them in different combinations, e.g., {{user2}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, it's the "(talk | contribs)" text following the user name that is being referred to. As the text was copied from the screen output of the block log, the hyperlinks were not preserved. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Slaylordaniel13

Could you please perform a CheckUser for this SPI unless one has already been performed? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not a check user, so I couldn't do it even if I wanted to. I'm just a lowly admin and SPI clerk. However, you can request a CU at the SPI itself. The fact that you aren't the filer doesn't prevent you from doing that. I'd back it up with a reason, though, in a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, just often saw you at SPI with "clerk declined" or "clerk endorsed" :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

IP hopping on talk(page)

See Talk:Ayurveda, I really don't think that these edits[45]-[46]-[47] are helpful, they are discouraging everyone who has contributed to this article or talk page. I removed them twice, but the person seems to be IP hopping and ready to edit war over it. Can you do something? Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you would do better to let it go. It's not obvious vandalism, so edit-warring over it isn't justified. I see that Dreadstar hatted the comment. I don't know what the IP will do next, but unless someone wants to semi the talk page, I don't see any other option. The extended discussion at WP:AN makes me even more reluctant to act.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatting was a good idea and protection is possible only if the IP is going to make disruptive comments again. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you block Special:Contributions/108.73.115.44? See User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list . Bladesmulti (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I blocked the IP for a week, but I'm obviously not familiar with the bigger picture. Based on that list, and based on the kind of disruptive activity by the IP, I'm assuming this is an ongoing onslaught and that one block is not effective. Without knowing the background and the details, and even without any warnings on the IP's talk page (that was a red flag for me), I felt I could still justify a block, even if it's "pointless". Perhaps you could give me some additional background so I'm not blocking in the almost dark?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverts every contribution of Arthur Rubin and some others(like Vsmith[48]-[49]). I never knew about this editor until yesterday.[50] It was a different IP. After I looked at User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list, I found that it is a case of long term abuse. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know much more than I do. :-) There must be a strategy for dealing with this rather than picking them off one by one. Something has to explain the lack of warnings and the single comment on the IP's talk page, despite the obvious disruption. Maybe Arthur Rubin can shed some light on this for us.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it a shame that the IP's comments were even hatted, as they actually are probably good advice for mainstream editors. Many have already declared the impossibility of editing from a mainstream POV against the advocates of fringe theories, and left the page to said advocates. The IP certainly doesn't deserve Blades's branding of long term abuser. Heshe is just making a rather accurate observation. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Reading this thread further, I see you have blocked the IP. Hmmm. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I didn't know that IP(216..) until today, my issue with 216. was no more active after the comment I made on 06:10, 15 November 2014. Other one from 06:17, 15 November 2014 concerned with another IP who is here only for reverting the edits of particular users, especially Arthur Rubin, if you see User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list, that is the long term abuse case. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP whose edits on the talk page were hatted. If the two IPs are the same person, which isn't obvious to me based on the IP characteristics but might be based on behavior (as I said, I'm not up to speed here), that presents yet another problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are different people. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Bbb23, false alarm, carry on, sorry -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different questionable editors, although the IP ranges are similar. The "No mas" editor here is clearly not the same as the "Michigan Kid" (formerly known as the "Kalamazoo Kid"), who is the one who is stalking me, as I attempt to stalk and revert his edits as those of a blocked editor may never have edited under a user name (although there are some claims that he matches an indefinitely blocked user.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Aku Indonesia

Hi, Just want to let you know that I have reported Aku Indonesia for edit-warring in Persib Bandung to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring , despite consensus have been reached. Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl

I would like you to please note that the report wasn't a fishing expedition, as noted in my talk page User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 11#Martin's unblock request I would have preferred not to have made an SPI at all. I also pointed out that I doubted CU evidence would be useful in this case, so I was not advocating a CU fishing expedition. Although User:DeFacto has become somewhat of a bogeyman in certain quarters, it clearly wasn't him and that was definitely a red herring. The only reason for reporting it at all, was that Martin himself demanded it and to be honest the over elaborate alibis tend to make me think I was right. Anyway it is somewhat moot since Martin seems determined to remain blocked at the moment. Regards, WCM_email 19:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say your filing of the report was a fishing expedition. My comment was directed at others who mentioned the possibility of a different master.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on Al-Karaji

You might let HistoryofIran and user46.143.214.22 know of the no revert on Al-Karaji without consensus. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? They both were included in the notification at WP:AN3, and I see no reverts by anyone since then.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Article review

Can you check The Improv (India) as Randykitty told. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that article seem too promotional for wiki? It was previously deleted because it was too promotional and didn't contain inline citations. I have restored the article by requesting here and edited it. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions?

Had Signedzzz been notified of the community sanctions before being blocked? I can't see it anywhere. I can see they were editing disruptively, but you may want to rephrase the rationale to plain edit warring or something, if they didn't know about the 1RR restriction. If you do that, I can then notify them of the sanctions — I don't like to do it right now, it would be too much like throwing the yeast into the oven after the bread. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

My understanding of the policy is to impose the equivalent of discretionary sanctions, they must be notified, but that to block them for violating 1RR no notification is needed. In this instance, there is a notice on the Talk page and an editnotice when anyone edits the article informing the user of the 1RR restriction. That said, I usually don't block someone for a 1RR violation if they haven't been previously notified, but here, the editor's behavior was far worse than usual, and I intentionally chose to do so. I could add edit warring to the log itself. As I recall, they reverted more than twice but not more than three times.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WHY?

why did you delete the article Rajesh Kaji Shrestha so quick .why did you not inform before deleting it?Jojolpa (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't notify users before deleting an article. The basis for the deletion is WP:CSD#A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

Would you consider standing for arbcom, please?

Now is the time. In fact, now is almost too late, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates.

I think you'd get in. I think you'd do a good job. I'd probably disagree with you half the time, but that's normal.

Please think about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unusual group of candidates so far. Only one admin candidate who has, as he says, a colorful past. I don't know the stats. Have we had any arbitrators in recent years who were not administrators? Anyway, I'll give your suggestion that I become more of a masochist than I already am some thought, although, as you note, there isn't much time left, and my real life is impinging more than usual.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please. What reasonable person would even think of "real life" when contemplating the ecstatic agony of wading through endless sniping and bickering among people who have clearly by their comments reverted to early childhood? How could you even consider passing up the opportunity? Having said that, God help us, if we don't get enough realistic candidates like you running, I might run. Imagine me on ArbCom, and how nuclear obliteration of the planet would probably be considered preferable by most people. Imagine me making decisions about others, maybe including you, if you don't flee in disgust at the news of my candidacy. The prospect of clearly pseudoscientific, probably supernatural, evil entities on ArbCom (like me) should be enough to both liquefy the bowels and inspire any reasonable person by the prospect. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My, my, what a colorful post. I didn't mean that being a committee member would impinge on my real life (although it no doubt would but so does being an administrator). I meant that given what's happening right now in my real life, I wasn't sure if I could even make a decision as to whether to run by the deadline.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure no non-admin has been elected in the past. NE Ent 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Gurjeshwar

Just added a few rather obvious socks of Gurjeshwar (WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurjeshwar). You had authorised CU earlier on a more limited number, hope you don't object to CU running also on those. If you do object, thanks to remove them or indicate so. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read my notes at the SPI, Kashmiri.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. kashmiri ^TALK 01:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

Vetrisimino0 is currently abusing his talk page privilege by making multipul unblock requests, making attacks against users, and accusations of spamming despite all ready being blocked as a confirmed sock. Do you mind looking at this? AcidSnow (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AcidSnow (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Time for another block?

Hello Bbb23. See User talk:Wearypoet#November 2014. Wearypoet is continuing with more of the same reverts at R. Kelly, with no discussion as usual. I am wondering if it is now time for an indef block. (Another possibility is one month but he might just wait it out). An indef could be lifted if he would agree to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

Greetings. If you have a moment, I request that you please review the situation/conduct here and here. Thanks for your time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see this has already been addressed. Thank you for your time in any case. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

38zu.cn

Hello. This is ApparatumLover. You deleted my page 38zu.cn on 06:02, 21 November 2014 because you thought the subject was unimportaint. Please activate my page. I have 2 links as a reference. [51] [52] I want to add more info to my page, and maybe even an image. Thanks. Please respond and help me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ApparatumLover (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Those two refs won't get it past an A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

More refs. [53] [54] [55] [56] ApparatumLover (talk • 21 November 2014

Please take a few moments to read on pages on notability which any article must meet and our page on reliable sources, which shows what kind of sources are needed for articles. None of the sources you just provided meet the reliable source standard. They aren't even close. Ravensfire (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy on NAIL Distribution

Hi Bbb23. I saw you declined my speedy nomination of Nail Distribution. I hadn't seen the previous speedy nomination - good call on that. However, your comments seem to imply that even if that was not the case, you would have declined it and I don't understand why. I don't see any assertion of importance.

As a distributor, I don't believe you inherit notability or importance from your products. As an example, consider Andrews Distributing Company a local beer distributor in Texas. They distribute quite a few notable and important brands like Pabst Blue Ribbon, Miller Lite and so on. Yet, they appear to be a run-of-the-mill company that would easily fail any measure of WP:CORP. It seems to me to be a perfect analog to Nail Distribution. Am I missing something?

The Dissident Aggressor 15:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it might very well fail notability guidelines, but I think it's not speedy deletable. Why don't you take it to AfD and give me a heads up when you do? I'd be curious to read the discussion there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I've done so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAIL Distribution. The Dissident Aggressor 17:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)