User talk:Bbb23/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Undeletion

Please, undelete Nazar Voytovych and Oleksandr Kapinos, because new information has come to light since the deletion. This people have been presented with the title Hero of Ukraine (21/11/2014) --YarikUkraine (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see them listed in this section. Do you have sources?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course — Official web-site of the President of Ukraine. In ukrainian Nazar Voytovych — Войтович Назарій Юрійович, Oleksandr Kapinos — Капінос Олександр Анатолійович. Also english version (without name) --YarikUkraine (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't even machine translate the Ukrainian site, but the award is not the same as the one we have an article about, and I'm not sure if that makes recipients automatically notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hero of Ukraine — is the highest Ukrainian state awards. The article List of heroes of Ukraine is not update (Information as of 3 November 2014). Kapinos and Voytovych have been presented with the title Hero of Ukraine only 21 November 2014. --YarikUkraine (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way I read the English version of the Ukrainian president's website. It says: "Petro Poroshenko stressed that under the procedure, the title of the Hero of Ukraine couldn't be given to three foreigners killed in the course of the Revolution of Dignity. That's why they will be awarded the Order of the Hero of the Heavenly Hundred." And even if he's talking about some other people who died, I don't see any indication at Wikipedia that just because one has been awarded the honor, that makes the person notable (none of the recipients seems to have articles).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: The post following is a bit emotional, but no offence meant. The Moon goes around Earth thus water boils when heated to 100°C (under 1atm). What has a sentence about foreigners (=not Ukrainians) do with Ukrainians awarded? You can just check List of people killed during Euromaidan where there is a nice colourful flags next to each person's name meaning their nationality. (You can also click on it if you don't know a flag you see (it's done with left click of mouse while the cursor is on the flag, or by touching it if you use a touch-screen device) I feel like you need the detailed instruction, I beg your pardon if you need it not). Ukrainian is a language supported by Google Translate ( http://translate.google.com ) and you can also use Romanization of Ukrainian#Tables of romanization systems (and that's not mentioning the fact that YarikUkraine already done transliteration for you) so I can't see why you have such big problems with reading the Decree in Ukrainian even if you are uk-0 and Cyrillic-0. Your statement "none of the recipients seems to have articles" in undeletion request of articles about recipients seems kinda genius — how do you suppose them to have articles while articles were deleted and not yet undeleted? I'm pretty sure that the highest title of Ukraine could be what the second item of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, which is an additional criterion, says about and there also are secondary sources about them some of which you can see in the the articles about these people in ukwiki: uk:Войтович Назарій Юрійович, uk:Капінос Олександр Анатолійович so in my opinion the basic criteria are met as well. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gee, and all this time I thought the earth went around the moon. Maybe I'm confusing it with the nursery rhyme. Becoming an administrator requires a lobotomy (apparently according to you). Anyway, if the creator of the two articles wants me to WP:USERFY them, he can ask. Nice hearing from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nazar Voytovych

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nazar Voytovych. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oleksandr Kapinos

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oleksandr Kapinos. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU!

No, I never mind you correcting my spelling, beware, it is a full time job. I kept EC'ing, but it looks like you and I had the same idea at the same time. The problem is, it might look like they punted and just passed him because that was easiest, but it is a very defensible action, it could have gone either way. I had one fail at 75, it isn't the count. I get the feeling the Crats will do just this, and he will end up with an admonishment at Arb if they pursue. You can close what you vote in. As an admin, I would put a spank on you for doing it AFD, certainly we can't do it there. Not bit strip worthy, but a bad mistake. Dennis - 2¢ 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I normally don't correct other people's typos, but in that instance yours created a different word, so I thought it might be helpful to correct it. I've gotten the impression that more RfAs are being promoted in the 70s than before. Maybe because we need more admins? I haven't done a statistical study, and I'm not going to, either. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theopolisme 2 didn't, and while I disagreed with it, obviously I had a dog in the fight. Dennis - 2¢ 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that wasn't very recent (one and a half years ago).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• And there IS more way that could resolve this situation cleanly and clearly without any questions, but I dare not speak it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• How cryptic.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• All this could have been avoided if NA gave up the bit, the Crat reversed, another Crat closed it. There was risk that he wouldn't get the bit, however. It would have been more or less in process, instead of what we are dealing with. Hopefully it is winding down. Here in a about a week, I'm on wikibreak for a while anyway, breaking to vote only.....I need it. Dennis - 2¢ 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Armaan.haider

Regarding your comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahtasham.dogar3:

I totally trust your judgement. If you are reluctant, it is for a good reason. Should I reconsider? (And of course, if there are sleepers, all will be blocked because I asked him to declare all at his talk.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Anna, thanks for the vote of confidence. However, I think we should plunge ahead as you planned and contemplated by my CU endorsement. Regardless of whether you are being overly optimistic, as an administrator you made a commitment to the user. Although that commitment may not technically be binding, I prefer to respect it. One step at a time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Let's see how it goes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything Is Made in China deletion

Hi,

Why does the Russian band Everything Is Made in China qualifies for notability on the Russian, Polish, and German Wikipedias but not on the English one?

I would say that: a) being listed on Spotify; b) having released three albums; c) being active since 2007; d) being known by people outside Russia; e) having been named as "one of the most promising post-rocks bands" by the Russian edition of Rolling Stone; qualifies the band for notability.

Some references in addition to the aforementioned Wikipedia articles: [1] [2] [3].

Edit: Are you commenting on this issue? Thank you. rsanchezsaez (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I noted that the band had articles on other wikis, but that in and of itself doesn't make it ineligible for an A7. The article here had nothing to it. It mainly said: I am a band and here's a list of my records. I also note that it was prodded in 2013 and deleted for lack of notability, and that version of the article had more to it than your version. Finally, some of the editors who had a hand in creating the article also created the article on the other wikis. Wonder why. It's also odd after a long hiatus from editing at Wikipedia (not that you've edited much), you came back just to create this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Everything Is Made in China==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Everything Is Made in China. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I just discovered the band, liked it, thought it was notable, and created the stub (with the idea of improving on it later and/or hope of somebody else contributing). My mistake for not including more notability claims. I am providing these now in this discussion, and you do not address their validity.

I find your mild conspiracy accusations amusing. Maybe the original editors created the page because they like the band? I'm in no way related to the original creators of the page nor to the band. I wish I could have rescued more text from previously deleted page. Also, how my past Wikipedia editing habits affect the notability or lack or thereof of the band? I like to create band pages of small but (what I think are) notable bands. I find rising Wikipedia elitism appalling, that's why I contribute less and less. rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Enforce

You lost me on your SPI comments? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo said she would let the edit stand and mark the editor as a SPA. I said I wouldn't "enforce" that, meaning I wouldn't administratively restore the edit, etc. Is that clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea Ponyo was a she lol, thank you it does make it clearer just trying to not make problems so I wanted to ask first. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Block review

Hey! Was looking over CAT:RFU and I saw that you'd blocked Hotelnothouse as a Jfmisha sock. However, my cursory glance over that SPI doesn't show any CU confirmation that there's a link. I'm assuming I'm not looking in the right place - what's the scoop? m.o.p 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Master of Puppets, long time no see. I - and other administrators - frequently block editors as suspected socks without a CU confirmation, both at SPI and outside SPI based on duck. Actually, if you look at the list of suspected socks, there are several others I blocked without requesting a CU. It would be no different than if evidence was presented at SPI, and I, as a clerk, blocked based on duck. If you have concerns that this particular account is not a sock, you could request a CU, although a non-confirmation doesn't rule out meat puppetry (there are obvious COIs with these accounts).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, decided to pay my dues given that I've been working too much.

If it's a DUCK block I'll trust your judgment - I'm not familiar with the alleged master's MO. I'll decline based on your reply. Thanks! m.o.p 17:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Working too hard as a student or at a paying job? If it's the latter, it beats working too hard here. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Janagewen

Hiya Bbb23, Hope your fine and well,
You recently blocked this user but he's now using his talkpage to still vent his anger [4] [5],
Although talkpages are given leeway when blocks occur it just seems like he's getting worse and isn't going to pack it in anytime soon so perhaps revoking talkpage access may help?
Thanks and Have a nice day :)
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I was cleaning things up as you were posting this message. The only thing you should be on the look-out for is block evasion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah right :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. Seeing your name in my Watchlist has never made me happier! Still, I am very much wondering what led you to this user.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Codename Lisa, User:Janagewen filed a bizarre report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Again?! Wow! This guy really needs a hobby. Or a lady friend. (:sarcasm:) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I break anything by moving an SPI report?

I moved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Sandyunderhere (note the leading space that must have been inadvertent) to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandyunderhere. Was this safe to do? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a new one. You didn't break anything. Normally, there's one more step that needs to be taken. You can see what I did if you look at the redirect page. Frankly, I think in this instance I could have just deleted the redirect, but I figured it couldn't hurt to follow the normal procedure when moving a case, which is when you determine that the master is another account, not when you find an odd space in front of the master's name.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I also had to take the space out of the master's name in the body of the new page. It occurred to me after I left my first reply here. You can see where I removed it by looking at the history. The title of the page has to match what's in the template in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If I do want to move a case in the official way, what are the steps? EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's a simple move, meaning the case was filed under the wrong master, you would follow the steps here. That said, although the procedures page isn't explicit on this point, it would be my view that only a clerk should move a case (view is also supported by implication as the moving subsection is under "advanced clerking"). Therefore, I'd leave a note asking a clerk to do it rather than do it yourself. Now, if you want to become a clerk, we could use all the help we can get. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:AN3 which concerns you: reply

That was sarcasm, since a user above that comment kept calling me a Croatian nationalist that believes in Croatian primary school POV. I thought it was obvious, but OK. Tzowu (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept that was your intention, but from an "outsider" who's looking at an egregious edit war in which you were one of the parties, it never even occurred to me it was sarcastic. I've read the post above yours, and although I can kind of see where you're coming from, it's not even like the other user mentioned you by name.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

He's baaaaack

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarower Sigh Bhati [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Mike V - was there anything else?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Probably switch to another IP tonight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

UTRS 12404

Can you please leave a little more info here: https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=12404 ?--v/r - TP 21:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't, TP. I don't have a UTRS account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You could sign up for one. C'mon, all the cool kids are doing it! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, putting aside the fact that I'm hardly a cool kid, Ponyo, won't it just be more work? Not that I'm lazy, but I already feel a bit pushed. Ironically, another administrator wanted me to look at a request recently. It's a conspiracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But "more work" is why they pay us the big bucks! Right? Speaking of more work...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was going to talk to you about my ping as I know that you usually respond fairly quickly but didn't in this instance. I'm not sure Dennis is right, though. If he is, this should be brought up somewhere as a bug. Anyway, I'll address your findings tomorrow. Although you did a wonderful job, as usual, I won't have enough energy to finish the clerking until then. Getting back to UTRS for a moment, there are so many warnings and disclaimers on the create an account page it makes me feel like I'm getting an FBI background check. The cautious/anonymous in me shies away from that sort of thing. Nonetheless, I'll give it some thought, although I'd much rather look forward to Thanksgiving and the wonderful meal that awaits me (homemade stuffing, yum!).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The block is User:Consultant Princewill Samuel Udo. You said they were abusing multiple accounts?--v/r - TP 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See User:Consultant Princewill S Udo. Look also at deleted contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Karaji

Since the edit warring broke out on Al-Karaji, again, how can we get Seanwal to participate on the talk page? He has now reverted 4 different editors. I am still waiting for him to use the talk page, which he has not used since Oct 14. Seanwal's continued statement, "You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines.", is starting to sound like he owns the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He's only made a couple of edits since his block expired. However, I can't force him to use the talk page. I would ask him to participate in any discussion on the talk page. If he doesn't do so after a few days have elapsed since your request, come back here and let me know. I'll consider reverting him myself as it's not fair for his version to remain if he won't cooperate when the rest of you are prevented from reverting based on my warning. Another possibility after the few days have elapsed is for me to give him a final warning so it comes from an administrator. You start the process, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The only problem I foresee is Seanwal simply repeating the same sad statement, "You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines", and not bringing anything to the discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't count as discussion in my book.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is Seanwal's opening paragraph and, I might add, false accusation.

"You have re-inserted the problematic addition about twelve times over the last 45 days. It is incumbent on you to to explain and justify it with respect the MOS:BIO guidelines for a biography's opening paragraph. Here again is the guidelines:"[7]

I have "re-inserted the problematic addition" only 3 times since Seanwal decided to start removing Persian from the article.[8][9][10] I can only conclude from Seanwal's tone that he is accusing me of sockpuppetry! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's a clear accusation of sock puppetry, I'd ignore what you think are the implications of his remark. Has there ever been a clear consensus on how to handle the lead? An RfC? Something with more than just a few editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. His interpretation of MOS/biography is his argument at this time. His initial argument was a link to this. When that did not work he then dictates MOS/biography, then keeps making statements like, " I note that you haven't any concrete historical fact to offer bearing on his ethnicity; rather, you just assert a label." and "Now, you propose to add mention of an (alleged) previous nationality or ethnicity." The "alleged" ethnicity which is supported by 2 Cambridge University sources, among others, clearly posted on the talk page.[11] So his continued assertion of "alleged" and "haven't any concrete historical fact" is Seanwal ignoring published sources to continue his disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but without delving much deeper into this, which I don't want to do, I also understand his. I don't see how you can justify reverting him without a clear consensus. I suggest a neutrally presented RfC to resolve the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not reverted him since October 26th. Since then, he has been reverted by 3 other editors. Prior to his recent post on the talk page, he had not posted on the talk page since October 14th. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If he edit-wars, he can be sanctioned, but at the moment, those warned editors, including you, don't have to edit-war to be sanctioned. To get yourself out of this mess and, more important, to resolve the content dispute, take my advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice please

A new editor, Suraksha Paudel showed up at List of World Heritage Sites in Nepal right after Amrit Ghimire Ranjit was blocked. Aside from the sock/meatpuppet issues, there's an attribution issue as the content was copied from List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia. I and others don't agree with the split but should I ignore the obvious socking and place an attribution note on the target talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston what you have to say? Blocking sock and leaving a formal warning on talk(page) of Amrit Ghimire Ranjit would work. I don't know if he knows Wikipedia:SOCKLEGIT or Wikipedia:ILLEGIT. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation. The revert by the new user came shortly after the block of Amrit. However, the new user's account was created two days ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the last change by the probable sock and put semiprotection on List of World Heritage Sites in Nepal. Since this is just a redirect we could put full protection on it if it turns out to be needed. Further edits by User:Suraksha Paudel will tell the tale. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by sock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraksha Paudel (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I was just surfing over recent changes related to Nepal and undoed the revert.Why is the edit taken such seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraksha Paudel (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's return as Special:Contributions/CREAAMCheese

MariaJaydHicky's return as new user. Can you sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.183.77 (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, but I agree with you and have indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible topic ban violation (Memills)

Hello Bbb23, did Memills violate his topic ban with his comments on the Christina Hoff Sommers talk page ([12][13]) and the NPOV noticeboard discussion about false rape accusations ([14][15][16])? Sommers is directly related to the MRM topic area. One of her books is listed under further reading in the MRM article, she is quoted on the MRM page, e.g., in the domestic violence section (Men's rights movement#Domestic violence, and she's frequently cited on MRM websites (like A Voice for Men or the men's rights wikipedia). The subject of false rape accusations is probably the most important "issue" of the men's rights movement, so I think it's safe to say that false rape accusations fall within Memills' topic ban. I wasn't aware of Memills' comments on the NPOV noticeboard; otherwise I would've brought it up sooner. It's unfortunate that other editors who know of the topic ban (like User:Roscelese) didn't notify an uninvolved admin of the possible topic ban violation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Sommers obviously falls within "men's rights broadly construed". I'm annoyed at my earlier lapse; for some reason I was thinking "editing the article would be a ban violation, but what about talk pages/boards?" when of course talk pages and boards are encompassed in the ban. Memills has been, at best, constantly skirting the line since being topic banned - but the behavior of an editor who is topic banned should not be inviting constant scrutiny as to whether it's in violation or not. Memills needs to avoid any subject that could possibly be construed as related. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

redaction and page protection request

hi,

thanks for reverting this edit by a troll who has been hounding me for the better part of the year.

could you please redact the edit summary and the edit itself? i am requesting this since this since racial pejoratives are being used.

thanks

also would you consider temporary page protection? from my talk page revision history you will notice that this user has been repeatedly harassing me by abusing multiple ip's, the only way to stop him atleast temporarily seems to be by page prot. thanks Pvpoodle (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pvpoodle, I've rev/deleted the edit summary and the text. I've semi-protected your talk page for a month. If you want a different duration, let me know and I can change it. Do you have any idea who the person is?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the redaction and the page protection. Would you mind extending the protection to a longer duration? say 3 months or more? the only reason i ask is that we have already tried several one month durations and he always seems to wait for it to run out before resuming his attacks. I have no idea who he is in real life, but he is the editor formerly known as Shulinjiang. i really don't know much else and his persistence is... puzzling... just one of "those" people i guess. anyways, thanks again and regards Pvpoodle (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that helps, I had no idea that this involved a sock master whose SPI I worked on in early September. How quickly I forget. I decided to block the latest IP for a month based on the obvious block evasion. I increased the semi-protection on your talk page to three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering the number of cases you must work on, i dont blame you for forgetting. I would have been shocked if you had remembered :). anyway thanks again. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Body Building

File:Wikipedia body building.jpg Lor^Chat 02:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And you uploaded that just for me. :-) Thanks for making me smile.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of New Zealand Christian Counselors Association

Please could you reinstate this page for at least a short time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Christian_Counselors_Association This entry was written by a student at the University of Canterbury as part of his course assessment. I can assure you that it was not intentionally advertising. The creation of the page was discussed in class. I can't grade his work if I can't see it! This is one of the most awkward "dog (Bbb23) ate my homework" moments ever, lol. If you want proof of identity, send me your email address and I'll contact you through my staff account. P.S. It would be great if you could correct the spelling of the name: the creator is good student, but not a perfect speller. Anarchia (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anarchia, I've userfied it for your student. I've put it in their user space at User:Turtleball/New Zealand Christian Counsellors Association. At the same time I fixed the spelling error in the title of the page. I had to comment out the categories as article categories are not permitted in user space. Let me know if there's anything else you need, and when the assignment is done, you could let me know so I could then delete it (no point in letting it lie around).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 - all done. 132.181.215.166 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Anarchia, if the IP is you, I'd appreciate it if you'd log in and then tell me you're done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Anarchia: You may get a quicker response from WP:Refund, and perhaps ask them to userfy it instead as it probably still won't warrant inclusion in the main article space.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Help!

I supported you against the edit warring of the user Ravensfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravensfire) ... now he is vandalizing my edits by edit warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bar_of_California. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not listen to this user, they are just trying to gain support for their edit warring and 3RR violations. Even if you have grievances with Ravensfire, in the spirit of wikipedia don't listen to this IP who is just trying to trick you into supporting them. -SantiLak (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what the IP is talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

• This user. I noticed they made this edit on their talk while being blocked. Now, it seems they appeared here to make very similar edit. (whole editing history). My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• If you think the two accounts are the same person, you'll have to open up an SPI with as much evidence as you have connecting the two.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I probably do not have time for this. There are numerous recently open SPA editing in this area. I am only certain this and this users are the same. So, if you do not see any reason for concern, I would rather do something else. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SEMI Jimbo's Talkpage

Got a hopping ip ban evasion can you semi the page a while? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm the wrong admin to ask. I don't touch Jimbo's talk page. If possible, I never even look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Incandescent light

Have you dealt with the users involved? I get the sense some sockpuppetry is going on... I noted one of them was accused of it previously. Famartin (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Who?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

LiveRail and DieSwartzPunkt. Note that a response made to allegations of sockpuppetry on LiveRail's page was made by DieSwartzPunkt, seemingly as if it was LiveRail. Famartin (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's never been any WP:SPI investigation opened for LiveRail. The one opened against DieSwatzPunkt was by an IP and was "rejected with prejudice". If you believe you have evidence of sock puppetry, you can open a case against whoever. Just make sure you have sufficient credible evidence; otherwise, it won't go well, particularly after your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How does one build a case about that? What sort of evidence is needed? Considering that at least 3 of the reverts were done by LiveRail/DieSwatzPunkt, it seemed like a set-up to get me blocked for messing with "their article". Famartin (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's all you have, it'll never fly. Why don't you forget it? You have two editors who disagree with you; that's all.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question (how do you build a case/what evidence do you need). The reason I'm not eager to forget it is, as you already implied, a "block" isn't exactly a good thing on your wikipedia record. If possible, I'd like to prove it was a set up. I notice that my most recent comments on the talk page are being ignored. Famartin (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to help you file a baseless report. Read the instructions at WP:SPI. This conversation is over.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reporting result

Hello Bbb23, can you please explain your result concerning this? The reason it is "stale" is because there was an earlier report(not by me) that didn't get a response and because i didn't take any further action in this edit war. Uishaki has a topic ban related to Israeli-Arab topics, and has a long history of violations and blocks. Thank you. --Infantom (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring itself was stale. That left the issue of the topic ban violation. That would normally be reported to WP:AE or possibly to an administrator who is familiar with the ban and might wish to take action on their own. It is not the province of WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have asked User:Uishaki to stop discussing whether Arab-Israeli footballers are Palestinian. This topic is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. See the discussion at Category talk:Arab-Israeli footballers. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław

Hello Bbb23, POLISH Oleola might also be his sockpuppetry. Or Thehoboclown. He is from Romania using multiple account, on Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and even Russia. Look, for the Thehoboclown somebody previously opened a sockpuppet investigation but somehow he got away with. Because the last reported potential new user, KIENGIR was abandoned. Before, the previous reported case involving Thehoboclown, the same. Anarcham abandoned. Both were abandoned and Thehoboclown got away with. Another POLISH user is MattiR. Both KIENGIR and MattiR are linked via MATT. He might use fake ips though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.198.80.92 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

Stop deleting the changes done to Juan Vicente Torrealba's article. Sufficient reference has been included. If you do not like the artist just state so and stop interfering with other people's work and valuable time. You do not hold the truth nor know anything about Juan Vicente Torrealba. He is a XV Latin Grammy Lifetime Award recipient and as such must be respected. If you cannot understand Spanish and follow the website links, reading their information, then get an education before elaborating on unstained evidence. I have reviewed the history of the article and you have consistently sabotaged other user's work also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan008 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Pearson (anthropologist)

Bbb23 please explain why you:

A/ denied increasing the prominence of the record of fact that Roger Pearson denies claims against him? That fact is of most powerful relevance and without it being prominent the article remains wildly unbalanced. The most casual glance through the Talk section and the History of Edits shows that certain Wikipedians will allow almost no corrections of fact or of tone of voice that diminish the damning allegations that make up this Wikipedia entry. Without very prominently warning readers that Pearson has published denials the impression of reading the first paragraph alone will be that no other view exists than the view that certain Wikipedians are bent on preserving with hardly a scratch. In short by burying a statement of such powerful significance you are misleading readers and defaming Pearson.

B/ and also why you removed the large majority of the list of things that he has denied. All the those item are most easily found on the page indicated and, again, by denying a reasonably comprehensive list the sentence as it stands seem more to say that 'Pearson has ONLY denied these things and not other things' which again is tantamount to defamation and an act of misrepresentation to Wikipedia readers.

You certainly need to say whether you have any just reason for refusing two allow these things and if so what your reasons are.--Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have an obvious WP:COI and shouldn't be editing the article at all except possibly for minor changes (e.g., fixing the URL of your website). Everyhing else should be proposed on the article Talk page, and you should let neutral editors implement any changes they deem are appropriate. The article is not a soapbox for you to defend yourself. That's what your website is for.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 'soapbox' reference hurt my feelings and could be in violation of Wikipedia rules. You absolutely misstate the rules on WP:COI. Those rules are merely clear that WP:COI must be careful to ensure that in this case any changes which are made are thoroughly neutral. The suggestion that a person who is criticized by a Wikipedia editor is somehow how thus barred from quoting published material that the accusations have been denied is clearly the opposite to the truth and would be highly immoral. It is of highest importance that if accusations are in fact disputed in publication, especially if denied by the individual accused, that this fact should be made prominently clear. Over the years many third parties ("neutral editors" in your parlance above) have tried to correct the entry in question to make it balanced and accurate but certain individual committed to a primarily negative account of Pearson's work and life have near always refused such changes and without agreeing to explain themselves. For example I note with disappointment that you have declined to answer either of the two questions that I put to you. I would suggest that if you are going to reverse other people's work you should not be above having to explain yourself.

I invited you to the talk forum as is proper but instead of discussing the matter you have replied merely claiming that WP:COI may not participate in pertaining discussions which is patently not correct.

I invite you here once more to answer the two questions I put to you. --Roger Pearson 1927 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This will probably be my last comment on this subject on my Talk page. There are many reasons why you can't add the information you wish to add. With respect to your WP:COI, your edits are not neutral, and you have clearly demonstrated that you are incapable of being neutral. That's one of the reasons I said that you can't edit the article. In addition, you don't have the "right" to defend yourself at Wikipedia. If you want to find a reliable source reflecting the things you say on your website, then you can propose that on the Talk page. However, WP:SELFPUB does not permit you to add such self-serving material. Wikipedia articles are controlled by reliable sources and the noteworthiness of material. It is not controlled by the subjects of the articles. As long as the material in the article that you feel is wrong is reliably sourced, then there's no reason why it should be removed, and there's no reason why you should be able to rebut it. You were fortunate that the editors apparently believed that a short denial was appropriate as I'm not sure that it is, but I won't go against a compromise consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Axis Music Academy

Axis Music Academy is not an "Educational institution", it's a business - look at its website, and/ or the original version of the article. We've been spammed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's for-profit doesn't change the equation. Nor does the fact that the initial version was clearly promotional. The article has since been expanded. Take it to AfD if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

The IPs who were edit warring in the article are now creating new accounts to edit war, please have a look. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there some way I was involved in this earlier? If so, you'll have to refresh my memory.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You previously fully protected this article when there was a case on this in the edit warring noticeboard in this June, please have a look at the history. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, this is why I already asked for your assistance when the edit war started, they have teamed up and reverting all my edits. When an admin suggested, I opened a discussion in the talk page months ago but nobody replied, they are only resorting to edit warring. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Another probable sock of EoRdE6

2600:1004:B05F:717:0:37:25B2:5601. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender, this isn't as obvious to me. The first edit is unusual, moving the template on the Levin talk page. Why do you think the other two edits are something the named account would do? The IP is in the same range as the other block-evading IPs, but that would be "evidence" I would use only if I felt comfortable that the behavioral evidence was strong.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct, not obvious, but possible (if not probable). No IPs but EoRdE6's socks in this range have anonymously edited concerning the article or his concerns, so this may be an account to possibly monitor. Just giving you a head's up. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't think that my reaction means I don't appreciate the heads up; I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob, B; I know you strive to be completely neutral and accurate. In point of fact I hadn't even checked the other two edits of the IP when I posted this here; I was just trying to quickly create some way of keeping track in case the IP became problematical. Best, Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Hi, why you don't change page Persib Bandung, without expiry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aku Indonesia (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

2.177.207.221

Please look at how this edit [17] rendered. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When the IP created the unblock request, it was a mess because of certain characters that messed up the template. At the time I tried to fix it, but after a fair amount of work, which did in fact fix it, the IP had changed the request, so I would have had to start all over, and I said screw it, it was really the IP's responsibility to look at their unblock request after they had finished it. Anyone could see something was wrong with it.

When I "commented out" the template, naturally, it had the same problem, but I didn't much care. My only objective was to remove it from the category that admins look at for outstanding unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Barelvi article

Could you remove the POV tag that the user you blocked was edit-warring in? I was at 3 reverts, and so was GorgeCustersSabre, so technically we can't do it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a moot point because Gorge reverted, thereby violating 3RR. I'm not going to take any action unless someone complains in which case I'll consider it. BTW, I would not have reverted the tag. I don't pick versions after an edit war unless the current version is a clear violation of policy, which it wasn't, just a tag that arguably didn't belong.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

Hi, Bbb23. I was wondering if you could help me. I've looked at various WP:BIO pages, and I can't find anything about not giving cited birth dates for children. I cant imagine, for instance, to give one high-profile example, that the birth date of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's daughter isn't a standard fact any biographical work would not include. Could you point me to that guideline, policy or MOS entry? I haven't touched the article since you have. I'm being genuine and sincere in my question. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of this is my fault. There have been a rash of edits adding birth dates to children in article. In all those cases, the children were young. In this instance, the child is an adult. I would have self-reverted but the edit still doesn't belong, so I figure my edit summary was the only thing wrong with the revert. The relevant policy is WP:DOB. We should not be including birthdates for non-notable people even if they are the children of a notable person. Just because the media reports it doesn't mean we have to include it as we are not a newspaper. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to format "talk" comments, so I'll just throw this out there as is... I, too, am confused about the birthdate citation issue. First off all, Chet Hanks is 24-years old, and he's an actor in his own right. How is he a "non-notable" person? Unless not having your own individual Wikipedia page makes you a "non-notable" person. Second, if you're comment about not including birthdate citations stands, which I'm not trying to start an argument over, then you should delete my citation of Truman Theodore Hanks birthdate/birthplace, too (I notice you left it there, but deleted the others -- you should, at least, be consistent in your practices). And why even bother, then, to cite "(b. circa 1989-1990)"? Third, doesn't Wikipedia strive for completeness of the information it presents? I would think including birthdate and birthplace citations falls into that concept of presenting complete and thorough information? And finally, on the subject of formatting, Chet was born Chester Marlon and uses the nickname of Chet. The proper structure in the English language of that sentence should be, "... born Chester Marlon, or "Chet,"..." (as currently written, you imply that his birth name is Chet Marlon). Like I said, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just confused by your inconsistent policy (or practice) surrounding this matter. If you could elaborate for me, I would greatly appreciate it. Like Tenebrae, if there is a specific Wikipedia guideline, policy or MOS, I too would like to be directed to it so that I don't make the same mistakes in the future. Otherwise, if there is no specific policy on the matter, I don't see why the birthdate and birthplace citations can't be included. Thank you for your time. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic.

I think you did fine with your talk page comments. I agree with you statement about inconsistency. I've now made that section consistent so the only birthdate listed is of the notable child, Colin. Yes, generally, a person is not notable if they don't have a Wikipedia article, particularly an actor who is the son of Tom Hanks. If he was sufficiently notable, which he's not based on what the article says, he'd have his own article. Finally, no, Wikipedia does not always "strive for completeness". There are many details about a person that should not be included in their article. For example, even if it's true, would we want to say that every morning, when Hanks wakes up, he uses his left leg first to get out of bed? No, it's trivial. The worst offenders are, not surprisingly, celebrity articles. As for the policy at play here, I cited it above: WP:DOB.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Bbb23. I know you're an admin and I don't want to get you or the Bio Project upset, but WP:DOB doesn't actually say anything about children's birth dates at all. It says

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

I do understand your "completeness" point above. As a journalist and a biographer, my professional opinion is that noting children's births, with dates, is a standard biographical procedure and not minute, everyday detail.

Certainly in the cases of the parents actively releasing birth announcements to the media, there is clearly no objection on their part. Obviously, if the parents do not make an announcement, they want it private, and we certainly would not cite anonymous "sources" at People, etc. When they issue a press release themselves, however, it's public knowledge at their own insistence. I think anyone looking up Kim Kardashian's life expects to know when North West was born, for example. Does that make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, thank you your continued patience. I have an idea so I won't be the sole "arbiter" of what is appropriate in these circumstances. Why don't you raise the issue at WP:BLPN? You can link to this discussion so that readers can see what's already been discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite appreciate your own patience; thank you. I'm a little about nervous going there; my fear is that personalities play more into Wikipedia discussions than perhaps they ought, and I'm not sure I'm welcome there. But, we have to go where the road takes us, and I believe you point in the right direction. Thank you, also for suggesting that I can link back to this discussion; that will, I'm sure, help. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. I took your good advice and posted at the Noticeboard page. It was not without trepidation, and it turns out for good reason: An editor who hounded me and cursed at me in June and came after me again in November after I took a hiatus, now follows me around Wikipedia and is hounding me again there. I described his actions here and here, among elsewhere, and he just refuses to let go, following me to this Arb proceeding and now at the Bio Noticeboard.

One of the admins I had asked for help about him is now under Arb review for his mishandling of my issues and several other editors' issues. (I did not commence it.) Is there anything I can do to keep Winkelvi a.k.a. WV from following me around and instigating arguments out of his apparent personal obsession with me? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, in this instance it looks like you threw the first stone. I've hatted the back-and-forth between the two of you. It does look, at least thus far, that the consensus is against you on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking into it, and thank you, though I'm surprised that since WV was the one who started cursing at me in June, and then came to my talk page to hound me within days of my returning in November, that he's actually the one instigating ("throwing stones"). This dispute is simply the latest example of his following me around.

I'm not sure that from the four or five people in the discussion that there's a consensus to change WP:DOB. And most of the discussion hadn't been substantive; there's been a lot of label-throwing and inexpert opinion, but no rationale or analysis to counter the vast body of journalistic and academic standards and ethics regarding biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I've hatted additional stuff between the two of you. Again, I think you are misbehaving more than the other party. I'm not interested in the history. If you want to make a case for wikihounding, neither BLPN or here is the place to do it. Frankly, I'm getting tired of it because it's interfering with the constructive discussion about WP:DOB. Finally, if there's any consensus, it's NOT to change DOB, which means your viewpoint is a minority one. I don't think any editor contributing to the discussion has agreed with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually WP:DOB doesn't say a word about not including highly public, subject-confirmed, pertinent, standard biographical information, so if there's no consensus to change it, then the status quo remains. So the suggestion that, for example, we censor the birth dates of President and Michelle Obama's daughters is not in force. And it's not really true to say some others on the page don't agree with that. Kurtis, for instance.

I think the larger context of how the hounding impacts on how seriously to take an editor isn't being considered, but be that what it may. Sometimes an abusive, cursing editor just seems to have teflon around them. But no worries; I'll refrain from being a bother here going forward, and I do thank you for taking the time and effort that you did. I appreciate your not ignoring my concerns, and trying, at least, to address them. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would ask that the conversation you closed today also enclose Winkelvi's 17:48, 2 December 2014 post in which he insults me with numerous statements, including the inexcusably childish "getting your panties in a wad," and making false claims. It's reasonable to ponder how fair it is that he gets to insult and misrepresent another editor and that editor's response is hidden. I surely wish I knew why admins let Winkelvi curse at me and bully me with the f-word and now get away with uncivil remarks like "getting your panties in a wad." I'm sure if I cursed him with f-words and threw schoolyard insults at him that I'd be sanctioned. Please be fair and either enclose his insults or disclose my response. Thank you for any help --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make some final comments and then bring the discussion here to a close. First, your interpretation of policy is skewed, which then translates into your backwards way of looking at WP:DOB. Second, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as far as other articles are concerned, and, of course, there are always exceptions as well. Third, I didn't see any comment from Kurtis at BLPN; perhaps I missed it? Finally, I figured you'd be annoyed at my not hatting WV's comment, and I'm sorry about that. I declined to hat it intentionally after giving it some consideration. I agree with you that some of it is uncivil, but it had too much substance for me to exclude it completely.

Take care of yourself, and I hope you don't think that I'm being too harsh with you. I've seen many of your edits in other contexts and found them to be very constructive, and I certainly view you as professional and respectful. I've had to get used to the level of uncivil discourse on Wikipedia, and I can tell you that I haven't enjoyed lowering my own personal standards to do so, but Wikipedia is not controlled by me personally, and it has a bit of a wild west mentality at times, not atypical of the Internet generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Need to review

Hello and Thanks for your great efforts

I was building a new article by using my sandbox and when I became ready to publish I reviewed the title to find that an article with the same name has been deleted before 2 months, I'm asking you to review the article since it's ready to publish to give me the okay to publish or not. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies and already built more than 6 articles starting from 2011 and I'm working in public Jordanian figures to let the community and the world know about them since they are a great people in my country; authors, activists, entrepreneurs, leaders and more.

I'm asking you kindly to take a look to this article (Iman Mutlaq), I'm looking forward to hearing from you very soon. My great regards,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mustfanoo1992/sandbox --Mustfanoo1992 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What's your relationship to User:Amalssadi?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfA redact

The GCDTD awareness ribbon. "Help support that organization by send in helpingful support!"

I may have redacted the revision text that was merely removing content and not offensive. Should I just leave it? Sorry. I just woke up and saw it. I am a little spaced out. First edit of the day. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Anna, I understand. I think between the two of us (somewhat overlapping) we have the right result even if we (I?) didn't go about it in the most efficient way possible. You have been a bit spaced out, but I acted a little too quickly with my rev/dels. I actually don't rev/del very much, but this was so disgusting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was disgusting, but all's well that ends well. Do you mean I have been a little spaced out lately? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't know that you have been spaced out at all, lately or at any other time. I was just taking you at your word.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Just then. I do suffer from "Gradual Congnative Ditziness and Thickness Disorder", so that's good news. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

River Stumpf's new account again

He's return as his new account Special:Contributions/Bridgeburning (which is similar pattern as previous blocked user Gifchief). Can you sockpuppet him? 183.171.180.25 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, who is using a Malaysian IP to rat on a young Minnesotan man who was caught using multiple accounts to fantasize about having his own band? Six years ago when he was 14, River Stumpf made lots of tiny new articles and lots of redirects. Bridgeburning has made only one redirect, and has started two articles which are better fleshed out. Also, Bridgeburning is concerned a lot with genre, which River Stumpf didn't care about. I don't see the similarity. So many people are interested in Maroon 5 that it cannot be considered a conclusive clue. Binksternet (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping you would chime in, Binksternet, as you were the one who filed the SPI and clearly knew a lot about it. I had the same take as you when I looked at the Stumpf puppets and Bridgeburning's edits. Other than a little bit of intersection with certain articles, I saw no similarities. And the IP posting here made no sense, either (their only edit, at least using that address).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope you are well.

I added some information on Callanecc's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc#Peace_and_Greetings. I really don't have anything personal against you, and I get the feeling that since we just met, I didn't have a chance to give you some more information. I'd really much rather have you help with the article (because the article quality is really all I care about). Any way, no hard feelings. Sorry we started the dance off on the wrong foot. If you have the time and energy, please come and help. It can use a fresh set of eyes. If you want, come to my talk page and ask any questions about the State Bar and why some of that information that keeps getting deleted is important. I'll be happy to talk to you. Peace and have a great day. 2.177.163.10 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I'm not blocking you is because the article is protected so you can't disrupt it anymore. The nonsense you've added in the past to Callanecc's talk page and the latest nonsense you added is just further proof that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia. Please don't post on my talk page again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Percy Abeysekara

The reason for deletion of the page was G11. I don't think the page is unambiguous advertising or promotion. The person is in no way related to me and this is an assignment given to me. I would be much obliged if you could restore the page and advise me in this regard. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DireGraph (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The page is terribly promotional ("According to Percy, there is hardly a cricket ground in the world that he has not circled with the "Lion Flag""; "He gained recognition in the cricketing world as the most famous non-playing Sri Lankan on a cricket ground for his patriotism and love for the sport."; "Percy mentions with gratitude, that her sister was the one who presented him his first cricket book, ‘Farewell to Cricket’ written by Sir Don Bradman, without which he wouldn't have become who he is now."

Moreover, I also deleted it per WP:CSD#A7, which means that there was no credible claim of significance. This is not an encyclopedia article. It's more like a fan page.

However, if it's a class assignment, does the page have to be in article space? Couldn't it exist in your user space until after the assignment is over? Even though I don't normally restore any page that I deleted with one of the G criteria, I'd be willing to make an exception and copy the article to your user space. Let me know if that will work for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would be sufficient. I will however make necessary adjustments too. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DireGraph (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's done at User:DireGraph/Percy Abeysekara.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for the guidance and the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.58.186 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That you commented on Winelvi's page. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. it all started with his verbal abuse to a required 3RR warning [18] and escalated in frequency and intensity from there. I got disgusted and left Wikipeida for several months, thinking I'd never run into him again ... yet within days of my return, there he was on my talk page, instigating and baiting, and then cursing all over again. Personally I would love an interaction bad. Already, I avoid pages where he's commenting. I would be gratified if he stayed away likewise from pages where I'm commenting. He has anger-management issues and a childish potty mouth.

As for his other claims of my being the one with anger-management issues, I think you've seen how I comport myself throughout. And other editors have thanked me many times for my help. After nearly 10 years here, I'd hate to see my reputation sullied by lies, half-truths and childish behavior. I've done a lot of good here — just look at the articles I've created and maintain, and the level of research I bring to each, using professional skills, and I think you'll find I'm one of the good guys. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What garbage. I'm sick of these lies, misrepresentations of the truth, and personal attacks from you, Tenebrae. If we were using real names rather than user names, you would be guilty of libel and defamation of character. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Only someone with anger issues makes legal threats on Wikipedia, or throws f-bombs and demeaning comments like "getting your panties in a wad." Civilized discourse doesn't work like that.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, accusing another editor of making a legal threat is serious. Please link to the diff of the threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Spin it all you want and how you want, but there was no legal threat in what I said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"If we were using real names rather than user names, you would be guilty of libel." [19] And ironically, someone falsely accusing someone of making libelous claims could be found liable for libel. And I'm not being untruthful in the least when I describe your mischaracterizations and outright lies. "Did I curse at you? No. I used the word 'bullshit' in response to someone else." (18:58, 4 December 2014) Really? Who else were you referring to with "bringing up old bullshit from the past" (21:22, 3 December 2014)

And you misread policies and guidelines once again when you say that you have an absolute right to yell "fuck" other people: "Wikipedia is not censored and cursing is allowed." (18:58, 4 December 2014) Yes, it's allowed if we're quoting a source verbatim in an article. It's not blanket permission to curse out other editors. And if you think a stream of cursing isn't an anger-management issue, I'd respectfully disagree. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the material linked to in your diff is not a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unbiased Victory sock report

I know this last go-round has been a bit messy but was it correct to move the Unbiased Victory archive to Light2Shadow's along with the current report? UBV was previously blocked for puppetry when he continued to edit, logged out, while blocked for edit-warring, and though he appears to have been fine since, it would seem that the archives for these separate editors should not be completely combined -

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything that was done, including the merger, was a result of protracted discussion between a checkuser and two admins (one of those being me). The archives make clear what happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hi,

thanks a lot for working on the Reginald Ray article. Did you happen to look at the citations as well? I'm not really clear on whether or not the sources I'm citing are up to snuff or not; there is also still some information that can only be sourced to the subject's organization's own website, but that seems like a gray area with BLP articles. So, any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated, and thanks again for responding to my post.

best, Ironyoke (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)ironyoke

No, I haven't looked at all the sources (and I probably won't). If there are particular sources that cause you concern and you identify them for me, I'll be happy to look. Generally speaking, the two policies you need to be aware of are WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB (even outside of BLP articles, primary sources are not encouraged). Let me know if you have any questions about either of those policies. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at those pages and try to figure out if any of the citations are indeed problematic. --Ironyoke (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Ironyoke

Woohoo

Wow, youse guys are actually up! Imagine how well you'd perform if you'd drafted a few more players from Alabama. Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I be up? It's earlier here than where you are. In fact, we're just about to go out to dinner to celebrate Alabama's victories.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well played, liar. Enjoy your...pig snout sandwich? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It was the best pig snout sandwich I've ever had. We did actually go out to dinner, you know. Had a delicious vegetarian chili.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad, Bbb. Want to come to our New's Year party, at 7:30PM? You can come dressed as a Buckeye fan. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll check our busy social calendar to see if we're free. I hate to ask what a Buckeye fan looks like.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your help with Luke. While things don't seem to have turned out the way that we wanted them to - we've each grown a little closer and will continue to do our best for other editors who we might be able to "save". Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti, but, honestly, I think you deserve it more than anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Friends edit

I haven't logged in to wiki for a long time. When I did you sent me a message saying I edited something about the show Friends back in November 2010. Do you have a record of what I edited. I wouldn't of edited any information for fun or to vandalize. Do you have a record of the edit I made. It is bothering me.

Thanks, PaulPnewman679 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit. It changed a fact, but it also destroyed the formatting of part of the article. I'll assume it was inadvertent on your part.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Herat

I'm having a problem with edit-warrior/pov pusher User:ماني at Herat (Afghanistan's 3rd largest city). It behaves like a single purpose account, likely somebody's sockpuppet who keeps undoing my edits and adding copyvio content, and in the process, it keeps removing properly sourced and important info that I add about the city being governed by Afghans since the early 18th century.[20] [21] I'm avoiding edit war but it has no respect for other editors. I have a feeling that this IP sockpuppeteer that you recently blocked may be involved.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has edited with two different accounts, some edits of which apparently overlap, although I haven't compared edit for edit. The other account, User:Mani1 hasn't edited since November 2011. I have no idea what's going on, but if you think the two accounts are puppets of User:Beh-nam, you'll have to reopen the Beh-nam SPI and report it, along with evidence. It's not straightforward enough for me to make a decision on the fly.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI - Mohammed al-Bukhari

I have only just seen this. Thank you for your comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Déjà vu

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: ) -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with in my absence. I'll be interested to see if the user keeps their promise.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a Problem?

Is this behavior bad enough to warrant a warning of some kind? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice&diff=636941282&oldid=636921886 I haven't meaningfully edited Wikipedia since 2005, so I don't know where the line is anymore. Everything has changed. 65.182.60.103 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So who are you and why are you even interested in that fight?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just a nobody. I came across it by pure random chance during a wiki-walk. As the subject line indicates, I didn't know what to do. I saw you had a measured stance (having blocked and unblocked him), so I thought I'd ask. I'm sorry if I offended in any way. 65.182.60.103 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's just a bit odd your coming out of seemingly nowhere. I wouldn't call yourself a "nobody", though. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind remark. If it helps clear things up, my wiki-walk started because of a Mashable article ( http://mashable.com/2014/12/10/senate-wikipedia-torture-report/) that eventually led to my spotting the exchange. Since I am basically coming from nowhere, I didn't know what to do. I'm the person that spends five hours wondering if they should fix a misspelled word on the Wiki, really thinking they should, and then deciding not to out of nerves. If this was all a to-do about nothing, I'm sorry for taking up your time. In any case, thank you for responding and doing the hard work of being an admin. 65.182.60.103 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mack Z deletion

I found Mack Z aka Mackenzie Ziegler after trying to figure out who she is as she is getting quite a bit of radio play on Sirius Holly.

I intend to undelete this page since it appears she now meets the notability requirements. And although the last version included quite a bit of self referential footnotes and appears to be edited either by the artist or a fan that used the name of the artist, it also included some reliable sources. Additionally, there now appears to be more coverage: Billboard, International Business Times (although the article is primarily about her sister, it includes coverage of Mack Z including that she has a #1 album), Newsmax. The regular rotation on Sirius also appears to also qualify as notability.

However, out of courtesy I wanted to check with you first in case there is some history of which I am unaware. --Trödel 18:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Trödel, it's nice to meet you, and thanks for the courtesy. Although I deleted the article per WP:CSD#G4, I also noted that it was probably recreated by a sock. If you look at the history, you should see why. That said, if you think the subject is sufficiently notable per our guidelines (not just to withstand an A7), then you should feel free to undelete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for getting to the spam and deleting all those spam articles. I was debating ANI/AIV but you got there before me. :)

— kikichugirl ^inquire 05:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to Dillip Dash. The guy was out of control. After I deleted two of the articles, he recreated them. I usually don't delete the same article twice but leave it to another admin, but then he started creating article after article promoting himself, much of which overlapped and followed a certain rather poorly thought-out formula. It was too disruptive, so I just deleted them all and blocked him. Anyway, thanks for the kitty.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing community discretionary sanctions

See User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14#Allow CS alerts to be handled with same edit filter as Arbcom's? where I mentioned the wording of WP:GS/SCW. Didn't you create the wording of the Syrian Civil War sanctions? Just now a phrase is needed. How about adding 'usual discretionary sanctions' or 'community discretionary sanctions' to the vocabulary? My idea is to propose WP:GS/SCW as a standard for future community DS. As one benefit of standardizing a definition, we might have community DS alerts be issued using an edit filter like Arbcom's. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I like "community discretionary sanctions" better. Usual sounds kind of casual and offhand. Do we need to have a fuller discussion, or should we just do it?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At least we should try to get User:Callanecc to comment. And maybe one or more of the people who have ever drafted a community sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Keep me posted, particularly if the discussion ends up on another page.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A review of the wording of WP:GS/Caste shows I got away with this edit which uses WP:AC/DS as the definition of discretionary sanctions. The linked discussion at User:Salvio giuliano's page was "Better message in uw-castewarning" . The only problem with linking to WP:AC/DS for the definition is that community sanctions are not Arbcom sanctions. You used the phrase 'mirror ARBPIA' in the SCW sanctions which is better. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Suri Cahaya

The user repeatedly added unreliable sources on artists who received award and nominations pages like Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato etc. Can you block him/her indefinitely? 115.164.81.213 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide me with a litle more information. I don't indef editors quite that easily.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't either, but I understand the motivation of the request. Suri's sense of an adequate source is lacking, and his apparent competence level is low. His response to having material removed is to insert comments that say "Don't remove things without permission". I keep hoping his skills will improve, because he seems to be well-intentioned.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you're more familiar with the editor than I am, so I'll let you handle it. :-) You should see the comment the IP left at another admin's page. It had more merit and the admin acted, but the IP's comments were amusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Ralph Laventure Cram

Please give me my code so that I can continue to edit. Yes, I accidentally submitted when I just meant to preview, so it was flagged for no clear importance. So, since I did not know how to move it out of published space, I quickly edited to address those specific concerns. However, as soon as I went back to beef up, expand, etc, you deleted it for "unambiguous copyright violation"! That's in any case balderdash, as the section to which you refer (I guess - because you did did not say which)(a) has a source citation, (b) is a press release that contains only info readily available in many other sources, so was not particularly original in the first place, and (c) I paraphrased - or was paraphrasing, except you deleted before I could finish it. The photo is public domain. Please give me my code back so that I can finish this article and not have to start over again from scratch. Jpournelle (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't do that with an article that was deleted because of copyright infringement. You didn't just paraphrase. You lifted entire phrases from the journal. And it doesn't matter whether you provide attribution or that it's available in other places. It's infringement here. So, start from scratch if you wish, and do it in your user space so that it's complete before you move it to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to do. I did not know how to move it back to "my user space" once I accidentally posted it. Please don't make me start from scratch. It was my first time. I screwed up by posting before I was ready, and y'all were on me like a pack of jackals before I could fix it. If you make me start over, I'll just give up. Jpournelle (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Threats won't work. Even if you create an article in your user space, it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. And it wasn't your first time. You created Eloise Blaine Cram (not sure why you're so interested in the Cram family) before you created the Ralph Cram article, and you pushed Eloise into article space without first drafting it in your user space as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I threatened no-one. I don't know how to "draft in user space." I thought that's what I was doing by working in Preview. You clearly don't want me to contribute further, so I won't. I am interested because my mother died this week. I found a box of newspaper clippings from the 1930s among her things. They seemed interesting and important. Two of them seemed appropriate to the existing aviation pioneers series. The third to women in science. I have to go pick up my mother's remains now. You do whatever you feel you need to. And thanks so much for explicitly illustrating the principles of Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies. You managed to hit nearly every point. Well done. I learned so much from your example. Do consider adding User:Bbb23/Bite you to your user page, that others may also enjoy your warm welcome on their first day of trying to write an article. Jpournelle (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry about your mother. My sincere condolences. Having lost parents, I know how painful it can be. As for the Wikipedia issues, I doubt we can ever reach a meeting of the minds here. You perceive me as being antagonistic, and I'm just trying to state and enforce policy. I wouldn't want to cause you any more upset, but if you want to take a break and try again to discuss the issues with me, I'm here, and perhaps we can find a resolution, even if it's not perfect for either of us. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lloydbaltazar SPI is open again

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar is opened with the evidence you requested in November. The sockpuppets have resumed editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I'm sorry I haven't gotten to this, but I've had limited time on Wikipedia and I just haven't been able to get to one more fire. I can't promise, either, that I'll get to it soon, but I'll try.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Bbb23, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I don't understand

How was adding a {{findsources}} template to the talk page to see if sources exist for the article "inappropriate"? The Dissident Aggressor 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's generally a template used at an AfD, not just out of nowhere on a talk page. Inappropriate was the word I used, but I could have called it weird or unusual or some other descriptor. It makes no sense to me. I don't find it helpful, and so I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Here's the find-sources template for article Talk pages: Template:Find sources notice. Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Softlavender, that notice makes much more sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome; I learned something too (I didn't know about it)! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Applying the template wasn't "out of nowhere" (which is pretty condescending), rather a template applied to the talk page to find sources to see if there was any notability to the subject - it provides the same info as Template:Find sources notice - along the lines of WP:BEFORE I tagg(ed) it for CSD/Xfd - clearly not inappropriate.

Good to know there's another template that can be applied that folks may find more appropriate. Thanks Softie! The Dissident Aggressor 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you misunderstand most of what I say, and it's not worth your or my time to beat a dead horse as nominating it for deletion moots everything anyway. Besides, if I may put words in your mouth, I think that was your goal. Take care and I'm sorry you were offended by my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, not trying to prove your point but I don't understand your comment directly above. Either way it seems to have been sorted out. Thanks for your reply and happy holidays if you do them. The Dissident Aggressor 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Analogies

When both instances refers to violating rules of behavior it's hard to not make the analogy. He additionally has not seemed to be concerned about offending others in every intereaction with myself in recent months, I will however do as requested. --Falcadore (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, it's generally better to take the high road in these matters. Thanks for striking the comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tried that consistently to no effect. Call it a lapse. Have been trying for over a year to get him to take just a week off as it seemed obvious to me that he had crossed over into unhealthy obsessional editing. --Falcadore (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I want help How can i creat a new wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by علي محسن البكاء (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Sorry, not my area, and I have no idea. You might try asking the question at WP:RD/C or WP:RD/M. I'm assuming you don't want to create a new wikipedia that falls under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation. That would be a whole different kettle of fish.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• If you want to create a new Wiki, then that's what Wikia is for. If that's not what you want to do, then I'm afraid I don't know what you want. Also worth noting that this is this Arabic user's first edit... which is a tad odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Everything is odd around here. What's Wikia?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wikia is basically a Wiki-hosting service owned by Jimbo, which uses ad revenue to pay its bills. I'm surprised you've never heard of it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• The list of things I've never heard of is very long. Ask Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is true. You probably didn't even know that Rivers was hurt but should be OK to play. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad you have someone to play with. Don't tire them, though, if they're not feeling well.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• He seems fine, though your offensive line isn't much of a line. Have I ever pointed you to Wikipedia:Requested articles? Plenty to play with there, and you don't have to block anyone. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd go into withdrawals and, besides, whoever heard of an SPI clerk who stopped blocking people?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A query about Wiki rules

If an admin warned an editor for edit warring, and he is then brought back to AN/I for doing it again, is it appropriate to notify that admin so they can give some input? I'm concerned about improper canvassing/notification/any other poo traps. Thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but it sounds appropriate to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. On 26 October you warned AlbinoFerret and Doc James for edit warring at Electronic cigarette. Yesterday I reported Doc James to AN/I for edit-warring at the same article, but no admins took an interest. Today he started edit-warring again at the same article, resulting in it being locked for three months. Another admin who carried out an edit request at the article suggested that topic banning Doc would be a good idea. It's a bit of a meandering epic but there are plenty of diffs about both him and QuackGuru, mostly in the section titled E-Cig part 2.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. The earliest I'll be able to look at the ANI discussion is tomorrow, and I'm not sure I'll even have time then. By the way, I'm not blaming you because you did ask, but now that I know more about it, I think a better way to handle it would have been to link to my warning at ANI and ping me at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that in future if I have to do this again; thanks. There's no rush anyway because the article is locked down for the second time this week. However Doc and QuackGuru are making it impossible to improve it, and just about every uninvolved editor who's looked at it says it's a mess.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion at User:Aurangzeb Chandio

The sockpuppets of User:Mujeeb Rahman Chandio have been variously tagged by blocking admins with {{blockedsock|1=Mujeeb Rahman Chandio}} or {{sock|Mujeeb Rahman Chandio|blocked}} and ended up in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mujeeb Rahman Chandio or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mujeeb Rahman Chandio accordingly. I altered the tag so that they'd all appear in the former category (after all, there's no suspected about it). Having picked up some of his socks from the category on Commons, c:Category:Sockpuppets of Mujeeb Rahman Chandio, and since he's so persistent across several wikis I feel it's important to make his socks as visible as possible for users across all wikis.

I've no beef with how he's categorised, just that it's consistent. With 13 socks already we can be sure he'll be back, and keeping things clear across wikis seems the best way to catch him quickly, and hopefully deter him.

So, two three questions:

1. It obviously matters to you that one tag is used instead of the other. Why?
2. Are different admin tools categorising blocks differently? Shouldn't they be harmonised?

Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Each case opened for a master may be closed by a different administrator or clerk. There's some discretion by the closer as to how to tag the account, or even if the account should be tagged at all. Thus, you may see what you believe to be inconsistencies. I closed the case for this account. There was no CU, and I closed purely on duck. Therefore, I did not tag the account as "confirmed" but as suspected. When you find consistency on Wikipedia, including with respect to administrative actions, please let me know, and I'll get you a very large cake to celebrate hell freezing over. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain the distinction. A cross-ref link between the categories serves the same end, so I'll settle for that. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion 2.177.84.96

I noticed that you blocked User:2.177.3.1 for block evasion and I just wanted to alert you to another attempt by them at block evasion with this new ip here. They haven't edited in a little over a week but they are using personal attacks against other users on their talk page and other talk pages. I just wanted to let you know. - SantiLak (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They were blocked by another administrator for a week on December 12. They have not done anything since that block expired. There's no need to take any action at this point. If you notice that they start editing again, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Synthwave.94

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that Synthwave.94 has again begun removing the same sources as before from both Baltimora, and Den Harrow. He/she claims in this edit summary of Baltimora, that supposedly WP:RS/N justifies his removal, when in fact he never got any clear answers from anyone that the sources used are unreliable. He/she is now involved in edit-warring with another editor.--Harout72 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As you may already know, another admin blocked the user for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw it. With your permission I'd like to restore the sources that he/she removed from Den Harrow also.--Harout72 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor just did so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys

He is shaping articles away from the article talk pages. This excludes talk page participants and I feel that this is unfair. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I've never liked it when blocked users discuss edits to articles on their talk pages. In my view, it is not the proper use of a talk page while blocked. It's almost like editing by proxy. Your reason is another basis for not permitting it. What I would do is warn him that he can't do this and that if he persists, his talk page access will be revoked. Does that sound reasonable? I'll back you up if you want to proceed in that manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Very reasonable. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It may not be my place to say, but the entire section has been deleted. Twirlypen (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Twirlypen, I did notice, and it's okay. There are some things he can't remove while blocked, but what he removed is arguably removable. He didn't refactor anything. Anna and I are both well aware of our warnings to him, so removing them doesn't accomplish much. He hasn't violated them, so that's good. Thanks for stopping by.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution in South Korea at AN3

Hello Bbb23, and happy holidays! Since you closed the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Raducanandreea reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Locked) the SPI complaint has concluded. Raducanandreea is now indef blocked per the SPI. Do you think this might allow lifting the full protection on the article? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. I returned it to the protection status it was prior to my locking it (semi indefinite).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Semiprotection is one of my favorite things. One can tell from the title of this article that it could be a trifle controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hamza Yusuf

Dear User:Bbb23, I hope you are well. Please can you check the edits on Hamza Yusuf. One editor (User:HelpGod) has ignored the editor consensus and violated the WP:3RR in order to maintain rather illogically that Hamza Yusuf "is an American non-academic Muslim scholar". Another editor, User:RookTaker, has made a very strong case in support of the assertion that Hamza Yusuf is a scholar. I don't want to revert again in case I myself fall foul of the three-revert rule. My regards and thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Bbb23, I am glad you were brought to my attention. Can you also please check the edits on Hamza Yusuf? I am new to Wikipedia and do not know the revert rules. I am not claiming that Yusuf is not a scholar, though frankly, no scholarly source, as defined by Wikipedia standards of what such a source is, has been provided. I gave up on that and thought it best simply to be precise. I am simply claiming that he is not an academic scholar. Even these non-academic sources do not mention that he is an academic. According to Wikipedia, here is what constitutes scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method. I am simply disambiguating between what we call scholarship on Wikipedia and whatever else may called scholarship. In the meantime, GeorgeCusters has been resorting to rudeness, though I have not responded in kind. Please note also that, as I check his and RookTaker's history, it becomes pretty clear that they often join together to push forward an agenda. By the way, are these two the same person? Many thanks for your attention. I am grateful. Oh...this is HelpGod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpGod (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2014‎

Hey User:HelpGod, before you accuse others (User:RookTaker and User:GorgeCustersSabre) of WP:Sock puppetry maybe you would like to clear up whether you are guilty of this act. I see when I asked you about this here, you failed/omitted to answer the question here, so I have opened up an investigation here. By the way, Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:HelpGod, I am NOT User:RookTaker. We merely happen occasionally to edit the same pages because we seem to have broadly similar interests. Our greatest similarity, I think, is that we both take editing responsibilities seriously. We want Wikipedia to remain well referenced, reliable and useful. It won't be if we allow people to edit based on their own point of view. Please just try to stick to the consensus. Yours, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all (Tanbircdq,User:GorgeCustersSabre, User:Bbb23), both accounts Sirriasrar and HelpGod have been blocked indefinitely for Sock puppetry. Also, I am definitely not User:GorgeCustersSabre - we have differed in the past on certain issues, most recently on the Umar Vadillo Deletion article. RookTaker (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. PhilKnight (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil, that means a lot to me, particularly coming from you. Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is protection necessary

I've noticed that you have edit protected Danny Lee Duncan‎ to prevent disruptive editing, is that necessary. User:Wethedlv has done nothing that could be considered disruptive, She's just trying to create an article while not knowing the policy on article creation of which I have informed her of.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What? I'm confused and I'm a girl not a guy. What did you inform me of? --Wethedlv (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Wethedlv

Sorry Wikipedia doesn't show gender, I however have pointed out to you on Talk:Danny Lee Duncan that you will need third party sources that establish that Duncan is notable.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Documentation says: {{gender:Username|male text|female text|text for unspecified}}

Wethedlv's declared gender is unspecified. Bazj (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, folks. The article was tagged for speedy deletion. In my view, the tag was valid, and I would have deleted it. Instead, I chose to redirect it. Undoing my redirect is disruptive because the only reason it could be undone was because I didn't delete it. Thus, I semi-protected it to prevent that from happening again. If the article creator wants to discuss whether the page should be redirected, retained, or deleted, that's up to her.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Heuh0. That account was hammering my talk page, and I am concerned about what will happen when the 48 hours expire. If this continues, might an interaction ban be useful?--TMD Talk Page. 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is kind of on my radar screen now. Let me know if there are additional problems after the block expires. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

==Yo Ho Ho==

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.

Kla Tribunal

Bbb23 I have been reported for what? There is no Kla tribunal i provided source for that, there is only a Special Court that will take place for allged crimes that happend in Kosovo and has nothing to do with KLA organization i provided reliable sources like HRW that are specialized in this field rather than B92 source who is more a biased source.here.here. here. REGARD AND RESPECT Lindi29 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29, you should consider yourself fortunate that I didn't block you for edit warring. The content dispute has to do with you and the other editors and is not a justification for edit warring. If you resume your battle after the lock on the article expires, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So you say that i am fighting with editors ? No, you wrong if that what you mean block me right away, beacause i didn't do nothing wrong i provided sources that has nothing to do with the Kla Tribunal but they ignore it and told me to go away.Respect Lindi29 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29, I'm not keen on blocking users on request, but if you really think you've done nothing wrong, you have very little insight into the policies at play here. I might be willing to block you, unlock the article, and semi-protect it against the IPs. Let me know, and I'll consider it. Either way, my warning still stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you are aganist me and my reliable sources, you didn't answer my question but in 2015 this Special Court will happend and we will se who is right or wrong beacause you dont give me answer based on facts but on opinion.Respect Lindi29 (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on other contributors or people."

These are fine sentiments, to which I will certainly try to comply with in future. Please can you clarify whether or not the next time I notice a specific editor such as Davey proposing an article for deletion based on the fact he can't find any sources, and it turns out he either hasn't looked very hard, or hasn't even considered print sources, could you tell me how I might be permitted to express that opinion without being blocked? Or is the whole arena of talking about what people have or have not done in the course of their Wikipedia work, completely off limits?

Also, please clarify whether or not you think all the people who have commented about the fact that supposedly if I spent as much time 'fixing' articles as I did complaining about the fact they keep screwing them up, Wikipedia would have more/better articles. Are they due a block for talking about me for personal attacks? If not, can they be blocked for saying things which are clearly untrue? (I've spent at most two hours criticising Dave's actions, yet to write these articles properly complete with issue numbers and ISBNs, it would take many times that amount of time (and indeed effort).

In anticipation of you completely ignoring me, or otherwise giving an answer which isn't really an answer (no offence, but this does seem like the usual way things work here), thanks in advance, and Merry Christmas. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the conduct of other edits is not prohibited, but it's generally reserved for when you initiate a complaint at one of the administrative noticeboards about the editor. It is generally not permitted when you are simply discussing a content dispute, either on an article Talk page or some other discussion area. You created a new account in August but you have very few edits, most of them recent. Proceed more slowly and less aggressively. This is a collaborative project. Generally, there are valid ways of saying the same thing without the insults.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean there are times on Wikipedia where someone doesn't have grounds to complain about another person's conduct? I've yet to see it. Perhaps if you took the time to review what I've had to deal with, you might understand why I am in the mood I am in. So far, my experience of Wikipedia has been anything but one of collaboration. At various times and by various people, I have been completely ignored, I have been told I am or I do things I provably do not, I have been told provably false things about what Wikipedia's rules supposedly say, and I have had to endure several people telling me all about a subject they clearly know absolutely nothing about, to the point where they are making quite ridiculous claims about how long it would take to write an article to their satisfaction (and obviously, the two of those are linked - people who know nothing about the subject or the media that covers it, aren't likely to have the first clue how long it would take to find and summarise that media, are they?). Apparently though, judging by the fact none of that has attracted any warnings for their conduct, I suppose all of this is completely normal here, and it's just me who is in the wrong for complaining about any of this by referring to people's actual names. So be it I guess. I'm struggling to see how me slowing down is going to change that. It appears to be hard-wired behaviour. I'm afraid that what you may or may not appreciate is that people like Dave are always going to feel insulted when the truth is told - when it's pointed out to them that the facts tell quite a different story about whether or not their claim to be a "bus enthusiast" are remotely true - or when it's pointed out that their claim to have "literally" found no results on Google doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. Similarly, people like Charles, who are quite clearly only interested in trolling and annoying people, will always act like jerks whenever people follow up their 'reading advice' with questions which expose the fact that their advice appears to be based on nothing contained in the reading material at all. I'm really not sure why any of this needs to actually be raised at an administrator's 'noticeboard' before any notice of it is actually taken. Laziness/disinterest is all I can think of. There certainly seems to be a complete disinterest about the fact articles like NIBS are disappearing from Wikipedia based on absolutely nothing, certainly nothing that subject experts would agree was good reasoning. Still, this is all now being swept under the carpet because of the perfectly normal behaviour on Wikipedia - don't like what the other guy says? Ignore him and he'll go away. If he doesn't go away, complain loudly (and in a completely hypocritical manner in the case of Dave) in the hope someone gets rid of him for you. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! I am grateful for your assistance and advice over the last few months. Best Holiday wishes and Happy New Year to you and your family!

Thanks, Winkelvi, right back at you. In a couple of hours we're having a wonderful Xmas Eve dinner that I'm sure I'll enjoy far more than being on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

g. Dimpsons (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Improper edit

You deleted a whole section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=639483231&oldid=639483173

Why?

I need a place to get this topic discussed, and what you just did is not helpful. How and where does it get discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you want discussed? You reported an IP for edit-warring well after the IP had been blocked. You ambiguously refer to other editors without naming any. You just created this account with a rather non-neutral user name. Your first edit is to WP:AN3. You have a single issue apparently based on what you perceive as an error in the number of saves by Howard. If there is an article that you think is currently incorrect, take it to that article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there are a number of articles that all revolve around this one fact. Where can I discuss this one fact? Is there a soccer discussion board or something? TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Start with the Tim Howard article and its talk page. Once consensus is established there that it's 15 saves (and see my latest edits to that regard), then branch out from there to the other articles. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok Fred thanks. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hang on a second - this looks like some kind of block evasion to me. IP gets blocked for various edits related to the 15 number at 5:00, last edits at 14:57. 40 minutes later, a brand-new account appears, with the name above. Hmm. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also a block evasion feeling but whatever, the article talkpage is a good start. @TimHowardHad15Saves: It can also be taken to WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Football that deals with football questions (either discuss there or ask them for input at talk of Tim Howard, there is no nedd for two separate discussions). QED237 (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seing that both the IP and editor is verty aggressive, keep pushing 15 saves feel "threatened by wikipedia mob" do you @Bbb23: feel it is enough for an SPI (and checkuser) to determine if it is a blockevasion (IP is blocked then account was created). QED237 (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: You don't need to ping me when you post to my own Talk page. A CU would likely be declined here as we don't normally connect named accounts to IP addresses. So, it would be a waste of time. Luke mentioned the possibility of block evasion at the beginning, but I was reluctant at that point to block based on behavior, timing, etc., because the IP had such a foul mouth, and the new account did not seem to then. Since that point, although he still hasn't gotten as bad as the IP, he has obviously become more aggressive. I realize there's a conduct issue here as well as a vigorous content dispute, but I'm reluctant to block a new editor just because they're obnoxious, use bold, shout, etc. This new account does go beyond that (threat that he won't leave until it says 15 on all pages), but I'm hoping the content dispute can be resolved without administrative intervention. It looks like the latest consensus on the Howard talk page is to use 15, although it isn't as broad a consensus as I would like. I tried to follow the discussion and found it hard. It doesn't make it any easier that I'm not familiar with FIFA, the World Cup, or even soccer, but the conclusion that it should be 15 seemed to rest on the claim that the latest FIFA official word was 15 (someone said July 5). However, I believe I saw a source cited by PeeJay2K3 that said 16 and was dated July 11. This conflict in the "official" sources is a bit offputting to me. For one thing, generally, Wikipedia doesn't even like primary sources, but I'm assuming using FIFA sources in these articles is the usual practice here regardless of policy. I really prefer it when someone says something about the sources on the Talk page that they link the source or sources they are referring to, even if those sources have been linked before. It would make it much easier to follow the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Connor Franta

Hi Bbb, regarding this page. Looking like the protection log it was create=sysop when the page was created by an admin. What am I missing? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. When I first looked at the article, it had a silly name. I declined the A7, checked to make sure a more appropriate name existed, which it did, and moved it. It never occurred to me to look at the new name to see if it had ever been an article that had been previously deleted, let alone salted. Obviously, it would have given me pause. It's never been through an AfD. All of the previous deletions are A7s. It's ironic. I'm guessing I decline A7s less often than many administrators, and yet here I find myself in a distinct minority.

I suggest that I nominate it for deletion with a disclosure as to its history in the nomination statement. I'm reluctant to delete it after keeping it, although I suppose I could do so. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When you moved it I'm guessing you didn't get a warning to say the target page was fully protected? If not do you think it's worth asking the devs to create a warning message or confirmation tick box? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: No, I didn't get a message. A warning would have been helpful. If you want me to make a request to the developers, that's fine, but I've never done one before, so some pointers would be userful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Posted to WP:AN#Warning for admins moving pages to create=sysop pages for some support before I file a bug. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello i have seen your request to delete the page Connor Franta. but i would like to say that i Don't think it should be deleted. i know this article was previously created multiple time by fans of connor but. this article i created doe's not violate Wikipedia's guideline in anyway. i also used the titled Connor Franta (connor) because when i searched connor Franta there were no result so i put the bracket as people usually just call the vlogger connor. thanks for you time user:Laxide13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxide13 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, but based on the history, I think it's better for the community to decide whether the article should be kept. Also, go easy on the additions to the article. Wikipedia requires that almost all material in an article be reliably sourced, particularly if it relates to a living person. So, when you add new material, please cite to outside sources. Take a look at the Welcome! message on your talk page. It has useful links that explain more about how Wikipedia works. If you have questions, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

IHTS

Good block. It's reassuring to see that there are some admins who take pattern of behaviour into consideration instead of just isolated incidents. I wonder if you saw this before you acted. Whether you did or did not it seems I was right after all in spite me being muzzled or I would have made the block myself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung, not my block, of course, just the revocation of talk page access. I did see your comments and Basalisk's as well. I decided that it was better not to acknowledge them, and although I was troubled by the removals of both of your initial comments, it was the attacks that triggered the revocation of talk page access, not the removals. It was arguably within IHTS's rights to remove them. It's nice to see you on my Talk page (it's been a long time). Hope you're having a great holiday.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I meant the revocation of talk page access. I was very closed to doing it myself but one other admin seems to have taken sides even in issues where no direct response is require from IHTS - my comment was strictly an admin observation. IHTS has been extremely abusive and disruptive for years on anything connected with admins in general and he doesn't hesitate to list his role models in the belief that prolific content work is a free pass to throw abuse, vile language, and PA around. When he comes of his block, if he continues his nonsense I won't be so timid in future and I won't allow myself to be ridiculously accused of harassment. Now that RFC/U has been deprecated it's either going to be an indef or being marched straight to Arbcom. Best wishes to you for 2015. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for the assist!

Hey Bbb, thanks for the assist with the ANI notification for Sumit naithani SD. Total rookie mistake--usually I'm on it, but I got distracted. Anyhow, much obliged. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure I'd call you a "rookie", but it never even occurred to me that you did it intentionally. Hope your holidays are going well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation

Bbb23 I was hoping you could help me out. I opened up a Sock Puppet Investigation yesterday at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MShelter. I have been warning the the editors whom I suspect are socks. Each time new suspected socks are warned additional suspected socks pop up. I have two more editors I suspect are socks, but I don't really want to add them to the investigation and just have the sock master create two more socks. Is there anything I should do, do I need to notify every suspected sock, that I add to the investigation? Any guidance would be helpful. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have evidence of additional socks, you should add them. There is no requirement to warn editors when filing a report. Indeed, it's not even encouraged, although I believe if you do it with Twinkle, it either does it or lets you do it - don't know because I've never used Twinkle to open an SPI. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that does help, thank you. I am not using Twinkle, I tried it once and messed up. I have added the other two suspected socks. VViking_TalkEdits 23:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs?

See The Weight of Chains.

I'm a neutral 3rd-party editor who was alerted to this article by AN3. When you locked the article in question, one of the edits you reverted, and the only one that could rationally be called an ethnic slur, was mine. I'm wondering at your rationale for that.

The filmmaker in question, Boris Malagurski, is, according to Wikipedia, "a Serbian-Canadian film director, producer, writer, television host and activist". His Serbian roots explain, among other things, his interest and possibly his perspective on the topic. That was why I added that language which, to my knowledge, had never been there before.

Do you think that was wrong? Jsharpminor (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no, the ethnic issues were the comments in the reception, not your addition. I noticed your addition and thought of leaving it in because it wasn't part of the content dispute, but I didn't want to parse things that fine as I rarely lock and revert. I actually appreciated your comments at WP:AN3, which I thought were well-reasoned. As an aside, I'm going to bed now, so if I don't respond to something, that's the only reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's really good to know. Thanks. Also, I wish more admins would do what you did, and revert to the consensus version before locking. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I did not revert to the "consensus" version. I reverted because I felt that policy required the removal of the unsourced comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So noted! :-) Jsharpminor (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

IHTSo

Hi Bbb23. I accept that I had overlooked that tp-access had been revoked, is there a problem if my comment could remain there so that IHTS could consider my point, and make an unblock request through the UTRS system, or any other system, while considering what I had said in that comment ? That he should make an unblock request through the talk page is not central to what I had said there. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow: I assumed your post was in good faith. If you want to re-add the constructive advice and tailor it to IHTS's lack of talk page access, I see no problem with that. Thanks for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's two. WP:3RR. Given there's no policy justifying your removal, please restore you pointless reversion. (You realize everyone just reads this, right?) NE Ent 16:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

NE, before pointing out 3RR please look at the history of the page. It is not an appropriate place to have the discussion as it is the talk page of a person who cannot respond. The e-mail button for the blocked user and the talk page of the blocking admin are useful places to discuss this block. Otherwise it you can wait for the block to expire and the user can respond. Chillum 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am thankful to Bbb23 for recognizing the comment as being constructive, and to Ne Ent for taking an interest in having it restored. I am a bit surprised that a consturctive comment has led to the page being full protected now. I am open to adding something like "Since talk access has been revoked, please use the UTRS system for putting up an unblock request" or some other modification to make this point obvious. I would have done it myself, but the page is full protected and I am not an admin. Since the comment is obviously non-problematic as it has been recognized as being constructive, and since I am open to it being modified, or something added to make the point about tp-access revocation clear, I would be thankful if one of the admins here would restore the comment, and let the matter be.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point you'd have to ask Chillum. If I were you, I'd let it go, but that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All this reverting, rereverting, continuing into full protection etc. looks like an overreaction to me. Chillum is likely fuming at me ( maybe rightly ) due to some recent interactions, so, I calculate a low probability of finding favor with them, which means I don't have much of an impulse to take it up there. I suppose you have no objection if I restore the comment after the full protection has expired ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Time to let it go, dude. IHTS will be back in due time with more venom, and you can ratchet things up when he returns. Ent: you've better things to do than pursue this one. IHTS and their like will be your albatross if you really want the clout here you desire. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you accusing me of trying to ratchet up things while the comment in question was only trying to suggest to IHTSo that he should tone down, and put some nuance in his comments. I think I had a good chance of reaching out to IHTSo and getting a positive outcome, but that possibility seems to have been destroyed by folks used to mishandling situations and being uncommunicative / clueless. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not have a "good chance" of reaching out to IHTS. You never did. And you are one of the reasons the talk page is shut down. Move along. Doc talk 08:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither the blocking admin, nor any other admin makes any constructive suggestions to IHTSo. A non-admin making a constructive suggestion is a reason to shut down the page. Makes perfect sense.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't name one admin IHTS "likes". Nor one editor he actually takes "constructive suggestions" from. Look at his well-deserved block log. Do the math. Bye now. Doc talk 08:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Your block log is interesting as well.[22] "Likening named admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" is not acceptable". Wow. I'll say! Maybe the two of you have a common deep distaste for administrators? Doc talk 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That block log is due to a gross misinterpretation of what I was saying, but unfortunately, it is of such nature that it will always discredit me with any admin who sees it. Anyway, it is long past, and it makes even less sense to project it onto IHTSo. I really appreciate what most admin-users do, but it should not mean I cannot criticize any admin actions.

Coming back to the issue now.

"You cannot antagonize and influence at the same time" ( some well known person had said ). So, you don't have much chance or being able to reach out because of comments like "IHTS will be back in due time with more venom", but I did make some comments which he might have liked, so, I did have a good chance. I don't know too much about IHTSo and I can't say who he likes/dislikes, but doing the math, I find zero chance of someone taking "constructive suggestions" when they have not even been offered in the first place, or are being deleted and the page locked when they are. I have no wish to abuse Bbb23's generosity any further, so, bye from me too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that we've been disagreeing with each other without hurling nasty insults back and forth. That's a good thing. This is how most people respectfully disagree and debate. Unfortunately, IHTS is far more apt to insult and mischaracterize an editor he disagrees with. This might help explain his current situation (and block log). Cheers. Doc talk 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Floridainvestor87

• Not 100% sure I agree with you for only blocking the two CU matched accounts. FraudBustersTeam has a name that violates the username policy ([23], the source they keep citing, shows that they are an organization of some kind, formal or otherwise), and they also clearly admit to being a shared account here. "TheDiscrediter" could also possibly be blocked as having a username that suggests they're WP:NOTHERE, particularly when taking into account their editing history. Can't disagree too much with not blocking the other two accounts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• If you wish, you can go to WP:UAA for FraudBustersTeam. TheDiscrediter's editing history is almost non-existent. Effectively one edit at the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains

I think you made the right decision on locking The Weight of Chains article for the time being. Pincrete's disruptive behavior, however, is not strictly limited to that article, but also the Boris Malagurski article (Malagurski is the author of "The Weight of Chains" movie), perhaps you could take a look at that article as well, I'd like to learn your thoughts on the matter. Kindest regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe he is violating policy, then you should bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. I rarely get involved in content disputes as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't want you to get involved in a content dispute, but rather if there is a need to intervene due to disruptive behavior on that article page. Unfortunately, the articles mentioned above are not very popular, it seems that only Pincrete and I really edit them, sometimes Bobrayner shows up to revert in favor of Pincrete and that's it. The difference is that I bring sourced information, positive and negative, about the topics, trying to create informative encyclopedia articles, while Pincrete only brings negative bias and, as FkpCascais points out, tries to "discredit Malagurski". I've tried dealing with Pincrete politely, but he uses his friend Bobrayner to manufacture consensus and pretty much behaves like Malagurski-related articles belong to him. I'm not perfect and I've lost my temper a few times, but I've honestly tried to cooperate with everyone who has as a goal to create good quality articles and nothing else. I've tried reporting him and still nothing has changed. And every administrator loses interest because he or she doesn't care about this topic and they won't even give me simple advice (other than the one you just gave me) on how or whether to go on. What should I do? --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend going outside of the small group of editors who seem interested in the articles. One possibility is WP:DRN. Another is an RfC. Malagursk is alive, so you could try WP:BLPN, but you'd have to demonstrate a WP:BLP violation to grab anyone's attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

[24]. I don't think me being 'involved' is going to invoke a scandal. Somthing just had to be done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't fret about it. If you hadn't done it, I - or someone else - would have at some point, and the user would probably just have continued to clutter up their talk page with the same garbage in the meantime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion closed at AN3

I'd like you (or any admin) to take a look at this discussion and this one. Seemed like a pretty clear outcome to me... what do you think of it? Jsharpminor (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've removed the result from each of the§ reports and struck your warnings. As I said in my edit summary, a non-admin cannot do this. If I had noticed it at the time, I would have either done what I just did or reverted you outright. You're free to comment at AN3 but not to close reports.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: I had to strike more of your warnings in the bodies of the two reports. You do realize that when you warn editors at AN3, either in the body or in the result, they may incorrectly assume that you are an administrator. I'm changing one of the things I said above. I think you should stay away from AN3 for a while. What you did may have been in good faith, but it shows a remarkable lack of judgment on your part. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a subject that has had me confused for some time. From the instructions for AN3:

Editors: Feel free to use these templates where appropriate.

All of the templates (except for "Comment") are closing templates. Why would this wording be present if that were the case? Also, is it written somewhere that only admins can close these? Please take me in good faith here, I'm not trying to be pedantic or argumentative. I'm honestly confused.

Also, the majority of my activity on AN3 has been to Wikify diff links and make reports more readable. AN3 as well as ANI are two of my favorite places to find work to do on the Wiki. I can easily accept a policy that clearly states that non-admin closures are verboten; but please don't ask me to stay entirely away from AN3, even if you're right. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I just reread some of my activity at AN3. I see your point. I'm coming in with lights and sirens when I'm not a sworn officer or given that authority by the community. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your first comment before your "epiphany", where do you see the "feel free" language. I don't see it, but maybe I'm not looking carefully enough. Non-admin closures generally refer to noticeboards like WP:AN and WP:ANI, where a discussion is actually "archived" or closed to further discussion. Such closures rarely occur at AN3. Usually, the administrative determination ends the report, although there are sometimes comments (positive or negative) in reaction to the determination. I'm not a big fan of non-admin closures, but they never include sanctions because non-admins do not have the permissions to sanction other editors. When you issue a warning at AN3, that means that you have the ability to enforce that warning, generally with a block. You don't have that ability. I hope that helps you understand that there are important distinctions between the different noticeboards. I suggest that you not plunge so quickly into the fray on any noticeboard until you watch, learn, and gain more experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AN3 - Click here to create a new report - AN3 notation templates [show] - ? New to AN3? Read me!

Also, since you might be wondering where on earth I even got the idea that I could do admin stuff without being an admin, I'll point you to right where it says in bold print that there is a lot of admin stuff you can do without being an admin. I eventually hope to do an RfA myself, as I'd like to be able to handle such requests, protect pages, block vandals, etc. I seem to be wanting administrators to look at various things quite a lot, and if you'll notice, helping me win an edit war isn't usually one of them.

I eventually nominated an editor much like myself for adminship to see how it went. One of the pieces of advice given through that process basically amounted to, "want to be an admin? Start being one, and the tools will be handed to you once you prove your judgment is sound." So, hopefully you can see my dilemma. On the one hand, I'm being told to do it and demonstrate sound judgment in doing it, but on the other you're telling me that to do it at all is to demonstrate unsound judgment of a high order. Hope that clarifies a few things for you, now you might clarify a few things for me. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 instructions don't say anything about feeling free to use the templates. The things you can do without being an admin doesn't say anything about doing what you did. If you're thinking about becoming an admin, I'd think a lot longer because you aren't close to being ready. I have nothing more to say. If you need more clarification on any of these issues, feel free to ask another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: I agree with the view of User:Bbb23. The task of a non-admin trying to be helpful at AN3 is tricky. There are a few mundane tasks like reformatting bad reports that anyone can do, but it's hard to imagine people volunteering for that. There are other noticeboards where non-admins can be useful participants. WP:COIN is one. WP:DRN and WP:RM are others. Non-admins can participate in requested moves and can close certain move discussions themselves. Ask me for details if you are interested. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin D. Burke

You speedy deleted this as A7, despite the statement that he is a full professor at the University of Illinois. Surely this is at least an indication of significance. And, although not a formal criterion of notability, in my 7 years hereI think that no full professor from that university has ever been deleted at AfD--and almost no professor in any comparable university, except in some fields not taken seriously here like home economics or education. So please restore, and I will fill out the admittedly unsatisfactory article. I know I can undelete it myself, but I always ask. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC) .

I've restored it and removed the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page, however, I was wondering... what was it they added to my page? If you don't recall, that's more than okay, was just wondering what they felt they needed to put on my page. I also hope their appeal is denied, as the coincidences of all accounts editing articles based on Nicki Minaj is too much of a coincidence. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the accounts being unblocked. The basis for the unblock is the oldest in the book, and no on ever believes it (my brother did it). The text I deleted was some of the worst I've seen. I rev/delete edits less frequently than many administrators, but this one was truly disgusting. Repeating it anywhere on Wikipedia would not be a good idea. Just assume it was written by a sick person. Take care and let me know if you have any more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sick, huh? That is beyond disappointing to hear. I sure hope it wasn't anything as bad as a death threat to myself or anyone I care about within my lifetime; that would be truly deplorable. Anyway, I thank you for removing whatever it is that they had said. I will try and let it go, as much as it may poke in my mind. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Don't let it poke your mind, livelikemusic; if you are gay, as your user page says, you've heard it all before--if you lived in my state you would have anyway, and in lots of other places as well, I have no doubt. No need to repeat it here. If this person ever shows up again drop me or Bbb a line, and I'm sure any other admin will be glad to take care of the matter by blocking and, if it gets out of hand, protecting your user page. Very often, though, these things are just single incidents, where someone just lost their cool and doesn't make a habit of online trolling; let's hope this is one of those cases. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you so much; I appreciate it. I hope it is, too. Those who throw homophobic words around or spread their hatred, to me, are really insecure human beings. So thank you again. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Losers. And there's plenty of them. But you and I, and to a lesser extent Bbb, know what the Bear was talking about: "I ain't never been nothing but a winner." Drmies (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Touting Alabama again, Drmies? "lesser extent"? Try zilch. Thanks for commenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User page protection request

Hi,

Thank you for putting an end and cleaning up this latest attack (User_talk:72.21.225.66#December_2014). Would it be possible for you add a 3 month page protection to my user page, as you did for my talk page?

And I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year! Pvpoodle (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Pvpoodle, it's done. Sorry you had to be subjected to it yet again (it's pretty disgusting, actually). Happy Holidays to you too.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You ended up cleaning it up before I saw it. Thank you, I am glad I was spared reading whatever it was this time. Anyways his terrorist tactic seems to be working. I don't often come to Wikipedia to contribute anymore, the only time I am on is when i am looking up something and i am auto logged in. If you take a look at most of my recent edit history, you will notice that I don't improve or maintain articles anymore, most if not all of my edits are just reverts of each subsequent wave of 'his' attacks and vandalism. sigh.. Pvpoodle (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I realize it's unpleasant, but perhaps if you just think of the person as an idiot or whatever is the right word to describe them and that they are beneath your notice, it won't bother you as much. I find, for example, that I am much more easily offended by people I know than by strangers.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me, I apologize for not being more specific. I am not so much put off by the unpleasantness of the whole thing (of course I am put off, but i do realize he is a retard), but rather I am just so tired... I mean come on, this has been going on since June of this year and still no sign of him abating his attacks any time soon. With that being said, I must confess that I am a little in awe of how you admins keep going on dealing with this kind of degrading filth on a daily basis. Regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, You need to take a look at this and put an end to it before it gets out of hand. User_talk:107.204.38.215 already reported the sockpuppet ip under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang. No idea who the other ip 103.13.103.75 is.Pvpoodle (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sobia Khan and Sarah Khan (Model)

Can you please undelete my two articles; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobia_Khan and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Khan_(Model)? I was about to improve both of them but found them deleted. I'm in Pakistan; there is problem of electricity loadshedding so, sometimes when I'm in middle of working on articles; electricity goes off. Both are celebs here in Pakistan and both have done so much in fields of acting and modelling. Let me improve both articles. Will give as much references as I can. Thank you. Touseef1983 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I almost never restore articles. Sometimes I am willing to WP:USERFY them for editors, but in this case I'm reluctant to do even that. With respect to Sobia Khan, I not only deleted it per A7, but I commented that it was probably a partial hoax, meaning that many of the claims in the article were untrue. You said that she was in 13 films in 2013 and 2014 alone. IMDb doesn't reflect anything like that. Although sources are not required to get past a speedy delete nomination, you also had no supporting sources for all of these films she was supposedly in (at the ripe old age of 23 years old).

Although the Khan model article (are the two women related?) was, honestly, a crappy article, I would be willing to restore it to your user space if that's what you want. In my view, though, after you add whatever references you say you have, you should submit it through WP:AFC rather than taking it directly to article space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kindly restore both articles to my user space. I'll submit both through WP:AFC. Thanks. --Touseef1983 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Morcohen2 may have a new sock

This looks like him: User:Itay890, using a mobile device to get around the block. HGilbert (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: In the future, the correct procedural thing to do is to open a new case, not add a new sock to the existing case. If you are going to cut corners a bit, then you should add the sock, change the case status to open, and add a comment about what you're doing and why you think the new account is a sock. You would not be able to do it that way if the case had been archived. That aside, the sock was really obvious. Blocking and tagging followed. And I closed the case again (after reopening it without realizing how quick it would be). Ping-pong. Also, if you have a question about how to do something like this, feel free to ask me or any other clerk. I know these things are complicated. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a little new to me. I appreciate your help. HGilbert (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ever play whack-a-mole? I've reopened for User:DbdbbdqHGilbert (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it's getting to be routine. A couple of comments for you. You're making progress. You changed the case status to open. However, you need to add a signed comment saying that you are adding x and reopening the case. Putting in comments next to the sock entry like "obvious sock" isn't good enough (I removed it). So if, god help us, there's another one before the case is archived, try to do all of that. BTW, I have the page on my watchlist so would see the change, but I admit that posting to my Talk page usually gets my attention faster. You can also add a comment to the SPI and ping me. That also grabs my attention. I have so many pages on my watchlist, and it keeps growing like a weed, so it takes me a while to go through it. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Bbb23, can you do us a favour and let check my IP adress? Kervani (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kervani: Two things, first. Why do you want your IP address checked? Second, What do you mean by 'us'. Thanks Lor^Chat 09:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I want my IP checked coz otherwise my requests for page protection won't proceed. With "us" I mean the editor Yagmurlukorfez and the whole audience watching us. Kervani (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kervani: Audience? Explain please. Lor^Chat 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You admins, Yagmurlukorfez, the crazy proxy using IP adress and me. Who should be else? Kervani (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) If you don't want to check my IP I will wait untill the SPI is closed and I will try the next request. Kervani (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kervani, in my view, the RFPP request would have been declined even without the SPI because there hasn't been enough recent disruptive activity on the article to justify protection. In any event, we don't do CU requests based on the wishes of the editor alleged to be a sock. There has to be sufficient evidence presented by the filer or others before a CU might be run. BTW, Lor is not an administrator.

Lor, I'm not sure if you have a role in this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 was filed by an IP, and other than Kervani's comments, there have been none by other users. The first case the IP filed I already closed for lack of evidence. Unless something happens with the second case, it will be closed for the same reaason (different IP address). If you have something to say that's relevant to the SPI, please do so. If you're just here watching over me (), that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just watching over. For whatever reason i got your talk page Watch-listed. Lor^Chat 01:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Warring/vandalising IP

Hi Bbb23, A few weeks ago you blocked an edit warring IP for activity on the Skyfall page. Unfortunately they are back doing the same thing on the page (and other edits on my user page as well). A talk page thread was opened in early December, which the IP ignores, despite telling others to use it. Could you step in once more? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I blocked the IP for one week. Those are pretty weird messages he leaves on your Talk page. It would be better for you to come to me earlier so you don't get sucked into edit warring yourself. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. I'll make sure I get to you earlier next time (and I have my own 2RR limit nowadays, just to make sure I don't get close to any further issues - and even then, I try and going to the second revert too!) Cheers for your help - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: A 2RR rule is great, but, even with that, remember that edit warring is prohibited, regardless of the number of reverts. When I look at the Skyfall page, without looking closely at the dates and times, I see you reverting four times, first with TropicAces and the last three times with the IP. And then if you actually look at the times, you came within 37 minutes of violating 2RR, which in the case of 3RR would be considered gaming the system and might count against you. I don't mean to take you to task. I'm just trying to help you avoid any problems for yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up: when reverting on different days it's an easy mistake to forget a revert or two from the previous day (yet still within the 24-hour timeframe), so thanks for the reminder! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• New day, new IP, same problem! Could you do the honours on this onetoo please? If they return again I'll try and get a temporary semi-lock on the page for a week or so and hopefully they'll get bored... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week and saved you (and me) some trouble by semi-protecting the article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• That's great - many thanks. Hopefully they'll drift away in boredom, as I doubt they'll ever convert to being constructive. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That IP blocked a minute ago, is back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.113.115.56 Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be safe it assume it's server lag. Lor^Chat 06:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Now this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/113.22.18.152 Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Congratulations, this appears to be fist block (by a human) of 2015 (in UTC)! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Do I win a special prize? It would have been better had I been faster than the bot. Besides, it's not even January 1 yet where I live. Who cares about UTC anyway? A very happy new year to you too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, California. UTC-8? Well, a very happy new year for when it comes! At least you should have better weather (here you go, that's my first obligatory Brit moan about the weather of the year!). The special prize goes to ProcseeBot, though, for being too man efficient! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI 70.etc

First off, I want to say I can entirely understand why you closed the matter as being stale[25] and this isn't about discussing sock policy.
My general thoughts are as follows: IP users can, without fear of retaliation, submit what they please against other and willfully hop IPs when they already have a history of doing so. 99.9% of the time any IP contributions are no trouble at any noticeboard or ArbCom when it's just a matter of providing diffs or when they need to defend themselves from accusations, but when accusing others and endorsing requests for extreme remedies (desysoppoing or bans, specifically), well, you can see what I'm getting at. It hardly feels fair to be sniped by a non-party IP boasting about their anonymity versus a "normal" IP user who could be blocked. Overall I am a very firm believer in the rights of IPs to edit but that's of course assuming they stick to a lone identity.

As this apparently doesn't fall under the WP:SOCK umbrella, where would it? I take it it's the sort of hypothetical that I should toss at a general talk page at ArbCom or seek out a few other comments? Again, this is incredibly niche and I'm sorry to take any of your time with it, but the broader matter just doesn't quite feel right. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tstormcandy, it really depends on what the IPs are doing as to where you would seek sanctions. First, you have to establish that all of the IPs is really one person. Then, if they are edit-warring in tandem, you could take it to WP:AN3. If they are being otherwise disruptive, you could take it to WP:ANI, but it would have to be pretty disruptive before I would bring it to ANI. I can't imagine taking it to ArbCom. As for IPs endorsing desysops or bans, again it depends on where they are doing that. If they are at ArbCom, neither the clerks nor the arbitrators are going to give much weight to what the IP says unless they can back it up with something concrete and relevant. If it happens at ANI or WP:AN, the same thing for administrators and experienced users. Finally, remember that a person can edit innocently using multiple IPs simply because each time they edit their provider assigns them a different IP, or they do it from a different place. You can't insist that an IP "stick[ing] to a lone identity". I don't know how much that helps you, but it's hard to discuss these issues in the abstract.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more clear-- This isn't about taking WP:SOCK cases to ArbCom or not knowing what or where to report. I've been through the SPI thing before and the procedures aren't new to me, nor are the general process of dispute resolution and varied incident/notification boards. What I said regarding 'lone identify' or anonymous posting ideology comes from diffs like this[26] and the edit summary here[27] of "might as well sign anyway from the throwaway IP." That's an extremely unique self-awareness and a continuation of the sorts of attitudes on posts from the previous IPs used. Originally I was just trying to make this sound as simple as possible by just giving the IP addresses in hopes to avoid confusion about the strange details! Seems I've failed hard on that. Oops.♪ Tstorm(talk) 11:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I dunno about "failed". Perhaps I've failed as well because I'm really not grasping what is bothering you or what you're trying to accomplish. Sorry about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Hi Bbb23. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Kudpung, it's a weird real world and a weird Wikipedia world. Here's hoping we can navigate the former with as much happiness as possible, and the latter with as little stress as possible. Thanks for the good wishes. Best to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2015

Hello Bbb23, I would like to ask why you have decided to delete the page List of terrorist incidents, 2015 on grounds of it not having any content. This page has been used in many years past (List of terrorist incidents, 2014) and is used to record terrorist incidents when they happen. Of course it doesn't have any meaningful content on its first day, but I already have something to add to it (bombing in Ibb, Yemen) and would like to get this page back up as soon as possible. Thank you and I look forward to a reply. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Newsjunky12: I deleted it because it was correctly tagged as having no substance to it. We don't have placeholder articles here. If you think it's so urgent that the article exists the moment it's "needed", then create the article in draft space and move it over to main space when you have something in it. Ironically, it was recreated by another user with apparently the same attack you refer to above. An IP correctly removed the attack because it happened in 2014. It's now empty again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you for clearing that up and educating me on the subject of placeholder articles, now there is another attack on it so it's figured out, thank you for your help and explanation. Have a happy New Year. --Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Grewia

Doesn't appera to be here to help build the encyclopaedia. An spa who may be a sock. I guess we could agf and just propose a topc ban although that might encourage others. Or try to change the instructions? Dougweller (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's a little amusing, actually. Grewia has managed to generate some constructive discussion between myself and the people in the SPI whilst being incredibly unconstructive and unhelpful themselves. WP:ILLEGIT would seem to cover them; even if they aren't a sock, then they're an undisclosed alt account and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia space. Interesting how they suddenly went quiet in that discussion after I pointed that out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: given your positive experience resulting from one of my notifications, you might be interested in commenting in the discussion I have started at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive15#Warned off for notifying suspects. Grewia (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, I don't think there's anything to change in the instructions. What would you change? I've commented about the instructions, both at Grewia's Talk page and now at the SPI Talk page. There's a history to the instructions that's mildly interesting and informative as to when notifying users was an option and when that option was removed. There are two problems now. First, the damned template itself. Second, Twinkle. If instead of opening an SPI at SPI you use Twinkle, last time I checked Twinkle notified the parties. This was raised on the Twinkle Talk page, but I don't believe any resolution was achieved. In any event, when an account is notified, I just let it go, but the unusual thing about Grewia was he was notifying accounts in SPI cases that he didn't open. That's just bizarre and in keeping with everything else he's done in the short time he's been here. I'm glad that HJ Mitchell blocked him as it was tiresome to "discuss" my warning with him. I'd rather spend my time more constructively clerking the cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle gives you the option to notify the alleged socks, but the box is unticked by default. As is the "request checkuser evidence" box. There's sometimes merit to notifying, mainly when the master and the alleged socks are established editors in their own right, but certainly where socking is obvious the notifications are useless at best. Anyway, I apologise for bringing drama to a quiet corner of the wiki. I hadn't reckoned on my fan club turning up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Twinkle, though, is it is inconsistent with the SPI instuctions themselves, which don't state that notification is an option. As for whether a party should be notified is a policy issue, and it has been batted about by others quite some time ago. The problem with giving openers the discretion of whether to notify is that they may not exercise that discretion wisely, and notification can be damaging to evaluating a case. If your fan club objects to your actions, then you're obviously doing the right thing. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But it does make the process so much simpler, and for that I love it (though it doesn't tell you that the box has a word limit, which is annoying). You could always try chatting to the Twinkle people—I've found them to be quite helpful in the past. I'm sure if you explained what you wanted it to do/say they would be amenable. An yes I completely agree with the rest of your comment. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

LTA still disrupting

You had blocked Special:Contributions/94.210.203.230 before, after 3 months block he is back and editing the same subjects with same pattern. Same use of word "lol"[28]-[29] .. [30] Same obsession with turks[31]-[32] Using the word "ban" where "block" is appropriate, and asking for "ban" in edit summaries.[33]-[34] Wrongly interpreting discussion that it wasn't "reached"[35]-[36] Bladesmulti (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Sigh, this points up my repeated complaint that there is no automated way for me to put the contributions of a user on my watchlist. If that feature existed, I would have been able to block the IP before he caused so much disruption. This time it's for six months. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and Happy New Year! Bladesmulti (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

What did I do wrong?

What did I do wrong? Xtina fighter2 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)xtina_fighter2

The only edits you've made since creating an account have been to add nominations and awards for the Screenchart! Channel Awards, a non-notable award organization, to various articles at Wikipedia. This constitutes spam regardless of whether you are affiliated with the organization. If you persist, you risk being blocked without any further notice. I suggest you find a more constructive way to improve Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a lot more of these links since you issued your warning: Noyster (talk), 09:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Noyster: Thanks and particular thanks for your reverts (it's a lot of work). I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)