User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Mr.Cappadocia

This isn't MRM related. User:Mr.Cappadocia is trolling Talk:Feminism and attacking a user whom they disagreed with in March 2013, on a completely different topic (Talk:Misandry)[1][2]. Please note this user has never edited the Feminism article. They are either VERY confused or trolling with a capital T. The attacks on Binskternet are violating WP:TPG, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT. I'm tempted to say its also breaching WP:SPIDERMAN. Could you keep an eye on this?--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They've no escalted to reverting Binksternet[3] on Antifeminism. That edit removes the lede line and sourced info. Binskternet was undoing vandalism--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have the situation in hand. The acccount has made only a handful of edits. I wonder who they are. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but feel free to nudge me if you need help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought so but here[4] we have textbook trolling. This is a vandal only account. I wouldn't be concerned about who this is. Over the years there's been lots of vandal only accounts re: feminism and antifeminism that have no relation to the other issues in the area--Cailil ^talk 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him, but I'm not crazy about blocking him at this point. I'm assuming you don't feel you can block him because you're WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. I'll drop you a line if it recurs. And yes I tend to avoid the tools in that area except in the case of uncontroversial emergency (and even then I'd try to avoid it)--Cailil ^talk 18:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi I want to do the right things, but need some help. A user swore here. [5]

I posted this User name... please refrain from offensive language. See [6] [[User:Blade-of-the-South|Blade-of-the-South](talk) 23:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor removed my post and the swearing is still there on [7] Russia holds its ground. Q. are editors allowed to remove my talk posts. I thought that was a no no. And is using the F word OK? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, Sayerslle should not have added the phrase at the end of their comment. It served no purpose other than apparently to express a personal point of view. Although it technically would have been better for you to address your reaction to the language on their talk page rather than the article talk page, I don't see anything that terrible about your briefly commenting there. An extended discussion about civility on the article talk page would probably have been out of line. Although I think VQuaqr acted in good faith, it was not their place to remove your post from the talk page. As for the original use of the "F word", it's fairly commonplace at Wikipedia. I personally don't think it should be used, particularly because some editors are offended by it (even though others are not), often editors from certain non-Anglo cultures, and I think it shows a certain amount of insensitivity by the editors who use it, even more so in specific forums. Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it, especially when the uncivil comments aren't directed at you.

I hope I've answered your questions, even if you don't agree with all of it. If there's something you want me to actually do, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have. Thank you. Re, 'Unfortunately, the application of the civility policy remains truly chaotic at Wikipedia, and there's not much you can do about it,' Thats interesting. I have noticed the trend, and Unfortunately it seems to reflect society itself. Signing off on this. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb2 23 - the swear word - is actually evidence of sensitivity, not insensitivity, I am too sensitive for Wikipedia really, - to think - oh this horrible person used a swear word , what an insensitive person this must be - is psychologically banal. some people are more offended by the relentless pushing of matrial that smears enemies, fringe garbage that destroys articles , thn they are by an very occasional swear word. admins of course find it far easier to silence genuine contributors who very occasionally swear, than they do polite pov pushers. ah well, its a fallen world. Sayerslle (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, admins rarely block users for incivility, and they (certainly I) often block them for obvious and persistent POV-pushing. If I recall the context, you were using the word "fuck" to express a personal opinion, which if true, is probably not a good idea on an article talk page where the thrust of any comments should be toward improving the article. Finally, it's up to you, but using the word "fuck", no matter what the context, offends some people, just as using profanities (the literal meaning of "profane", e.g, "Goddamn") also offends certain people.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody

The block seems to have no effect on him. He is back to his ways once but I have advised him to seek an adopter, what do you think? Sohambanerjee1998 11:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week and left a personal note after the block notice. I don't see how the user can be adopted if they are unwilling to talk at all. An adopting relationship requires a willingness by the adoptee to improve, follow instructions, and discuss issues. Thus far, I see no evidence Nobody wants to do that. You might also take a look at some of the recently created articles about characters in the movie Twenty:20, like Ramesh Nambiar (created by Nobody) and Devaraja Prathapa Varma (created by another editor). I have trouble seeing how these articles meet notability guidelines, and the latter is horribly written. I don't believe there is a separate notability guideline on movie characters, although there may be some convention about what kinds of characters are considered notable and which ones are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was particularly irritated by him but was keen to avoid any altercation with him since these kind of editors are generally hot heads and that might have put my DYK in risk also. Thats why I asked the editor to seek an adopter, coolest possible way for me to react. I did some background search for the two articles you told me about and found them to be absolutely nonsensical ones, the first one is about Mamooty (I guess thats why he created it) and the second one is because of Mohanlal. The characters have little mention in the rest of the net (Third party sources) and therefore I think they don't meet the general notability standards and should be deleted. Sohambanerjee1998 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh these articles are just plain... Ahem. Instead of deleting you can place redirects on the two articles. In due time if they are notable someone or the other will expand them. Sohambanerjee1998 07:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on possible sockpuppet

I'm not linking names as I don't want them to come and infest your page. At the end of the DR case he filed, Sarower Sigh Bhati stated he was leaving Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Yesterday, a new editor showed up at Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, Dr Meenakshi Kanwar, exhibiting the same sort of behavior.

1. Rapid, consecutive posts saying the same thing over and over
2. Same habit of using other editors' entire sig (including talk page link) when replying
3. Same need to puff up subject (youngest patent holder, "deserves" child prodigy)
4. Same habit of placing critical importance on what is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (announcement of patent publication)

I can provide diffs for all these. Bhati's contributions can be seen starting here. He has been involved in a SPI here. Is this enough for a CU on Kanwar? If not, what do you recommend? BTW, Bhati is still editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That new editor is frustratingly dense. The old one said he was leaving but today he has logged in to talk to TransporterMan, sign a DRN thread entry by IP, and make a plea to ArbCom. So far, the two accounts have not both chimed in on the same thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally looked at this. I'm including three accounts in this mess. It's not clear to me how much of this is sock puppetry and how much of it is meat puppetry, but both are sanctionable. I almost blocked all three, but after thinking about it some more, I'd prefer that one of you open a report at SPI. Make sure you explain that meat puppetry might be involved. Also, Sarower Sigh Bhati is the oldest account and therefore should be named as the master. I may yet block them on my own. If you file a report, please let me know that you've done so. Also, if there is continuing disruption, please give me a heads up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudeepgangal/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to it up above. But your advice is to open a new SPI with Sarower Sigh Bhati as the master and ask for CU, correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed the link. Yes, that's my advice. I don't know whether the CU will be performed, though. I'm an SPI clerk (trainee), and I still haven't gotten the hang of when to endorse a CU and when not to. In this instance, my inexpert opinion is it's questionable whether a CU is warranted, but, hey, you're not a clerk, ask for it. If it's declined, so be it. Another option is not to request a CU and let a clerk request it or a CU make a decision to do it. Your choice. There are a lot of competing issues here, not the least of which is just the plain disruption caused by the editors, regardless of whether there's any sock or meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarower_Sigh_Bhati. I didn't ask for a CU as Kanwar self-declared she was the mother. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Kanwar is trying to appeal her block with the usual regard for directions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I see this is keeping you busy. Thanks for being on top of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that was meant for somebody else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, what a dick I am. Next thing you know I'll block myself by mistake. I've now put it in the right place. Many thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Maybe he didn't want himself to forget. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're an awesome administrator. Earlier I thought of Admins to be extremely serious with a ban imposed on them which forbids them to be funny. Your just the opposite, you are extremely pleasant to work with and I really do think that you should apply for Cratship till then just keep on moppin' just like this! Sohambanerjee1998 07:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sohambanerjee, some admins have a sense of humor, or at least, like me, think they have a sense of humor. As for running for 'crat, even assuming I wanted to do so, I'm dubious that it would be successful. Every admin is different, but I often make what I consider hard blocks, which, naturally, upsets the blocked users - and sometimes their "supporters". But thanks for your vote of confidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider me to be with you for the RfB. If no one stands by you, double check to find me standing there. Sohambanerjee1998 13:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

deliberate and methodical excision of a source previously deemed reliable

User:John seems bent on removing specific tabloid format sources previously decided to be reliable for BLPs from a great many articles -- asserting that "tabloid format" is sufficient to call a source a "tabloid" and that "tabloids" are forbidden. If he were consistent on removing all tabloids, I think he might be making a WP:POINT of dome sort, but the number of places he is doing this is disruptive utterly. "Tabloid format" per se has nothing to do with being used on Wikipedia, but this looks like a jihad of some dort from here. I am still on Wikistrike, but ask you look into this behavior, which, as I said, I find disruptive to the nth degree. Collect (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I think you are deeply mistaken on several counts here. Firstly, I have made no such claim about the format sizes of publication determining their reliability. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to post a diff where you think I have made such a claim. Secondly it is mistaken to claim that the Daily Mail has been previously decided to be reliable for BLPs; on the contrary, this has been frequently discussed and kicked out to touch. The Mail is the worst sort of tabloid and can never be used on BLPs. Best regards, --John (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You called People magazine a "tabloid" and you gave an implicit threat about my proper noticeboard posts:

"I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type"

sure looks like an implicit threat from here. And you just happen upon my post here as well. Cheers -- unfortunately you can't put my contributions page on your own watchlist <g>. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@John: [8] no consensus to "ax the Daily Mail." [9] Daily Mail usable in BLPs other than for contentious claims. And then on a "case by case" basis. And, IIRC, you were involved in that discussion. [10] not a "tabloid" and useable as a reliable source. [11] "reasonably reliable." and so on. Although you had demurred, but did not gain consensus then or now. Cheers. And just to make sure no WP:POINT is made by anyone, I am now on Wikistrike on all general noticeboards, etc. as well as on general BLPs and other places. Good job!!!! Collect (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't happen upon your posts; every time you mention me I get an alert on the new notifications system. As regards the Daily Mail, I'm in agreement with Jim Wales when he says "It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)". --John (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? My post did not mention you, so your claim that you were "automatically notified" because your name was mentioned quite frankly is absurd. You likely should note that my position on BLPs is very strong indeed - but tht it does not extend to blacklisting sources which pass RS/N and BLP/N. Indeed at the top of my UT page is

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained

Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Appending: Mea culpa -- I did use John's name in this post, but not in others on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this has spilled over onto my talk page. John, first, JW's opinion is just one editor's opinion; it has no additional power. Second, JW's opinion is clearly qualified as it is talking about "outrageous accusations of salacious personal details", not just any material cited to a low quality source. FWIW, I agree with JW's statement as expressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may, Jimbo's opinion means absolutely nothing compared to the (lack of) community consensus to axe the source in question. Jimbo is not godking. John, you cannot use one post on Jimbo's talkpage to claim that the community discussions linked by Collect are invalid. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Redmayne

The Theory of Everything is currently filming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.245.109 (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If so, then find a reliable source that says so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IP edits on Syrian civil war articles

I'm wondering what is the policy on IP edits on Syrian civil war topic articles? I was just reverted 2 times in 24h by an IP [12], though i'm not sure what to do with this - do we report and sanction IPs? Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IPs should be treated the same as any other editor. I've given him a warning for edit warring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I'd pull back. You have clearly violated WP:1RR (as, of course, has the IP).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You are clearly wrong, i did only one edit at that page through the last month! You are welcome to Check again.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I misread the date. I've removed the warning from your talk page, and I've removed it from the log of such warnings on the general sanctions page. As I said in my edit summary, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd interpret the history as both you and the IP being at 1 revert, but borderline enough that Bbb23 was right to warn both of you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What???Greyshark09 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack, the IP violated WP:1RR; as above, Greyshark did not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the IPs first two edits did constitute a revert. I wasn't thinking about it that way. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And for protocol - 1 revert is not a violation of 1RR; 2 reverts and more within 24h is a violation (revert is counted both as "undoing" a full edit or manual edit, which removes another editor's contribution).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Cheers for you correction - frankly i had been stunned by your notice (!?), but as no damage has been done, it's fine. Just a revelation - i've never violated 1RR or 3RR and the only block i have got so far was "to teach me a lesson".Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And did it teach you a lesson? :-) By the way, you don't have to ping me on my own talk page. Let me know if there are continuing problems with the IP. They are editing from more than one address, which makes blocks more problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It did punish me; regarding the "lesson" - see the result [13]. On another note - thanks for all your cooperation and assistance on the Syrian civil war topic - it is a huge help for the benefit of the community.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again. This time the IP violated 3RR at Iran-Iraq War - see [14]; he is surely seeking a block i guess.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see three reverts, not four. Why don't you give them a 3RR warning for this article on their talk page? The best time for such a warning is after the third revert. You could also explain to them, if you haven't already done so, what is wrong with their edits on this article. That always helps before taking them to WP:AN3 if they revert a fourth time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, i've just explained that 1RR allows one revert, but... i forgot that 3 reverts is ok at 3RR. Never mind, i shall keep watching this one.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John. Thank you. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Shockingly, that talk page doesn't exist

I don't pretend to understand what you've removed, but regarding your edit summary: WP:ANI has no talk page in its own right :-O. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I didn't know that, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind Blown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noelia_-_Mind_Blown_(feat._Timbaland_%26_Adrian_Visby)#Contested_deletion (Jerry Santa Monica (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Thankfully, I've deleted the article so no one's mind has to be blown anymore. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting my contribution to a talk page

Hi! This edit [[15]] does not appear to be constructive, and I have reverted it. Your edit summary "this isn't even the ANI talk page" was incorrect - it is.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 15:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Bbb23 reverted it themselves [16], many many hours ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Django unchained edit

You said you needed more sources for the Cosplay sections for Django Unchained. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Django_Unchained&action=history

What would you consider 'reliable' secondary sources? There wont be many articles about it, but there are plenty of pictures available. Would links to some taken from comic con work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.60.29 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at WP:RS. Pictures are almost never reliable sources. You'd need something from a major newspaper or magazine that comments on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi, I just noticed that this user who you blocked the other day is now evading his block and making contentious edits with a new IP. Both IPs can be traced to Denver, Colorado, and in both cases the IP user is edit warring on the NRA and Gun politics articles. ROG5728 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI advice needed

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Sorry for the trouble, but since you are an SPI clerk I would like to ask your opinion about IP sock tagging. Please see: Mass reverting of IP sock tags of K-pop articles and associated discussion at Please do not mass-revert IP sock tags. Whenever you have the time, please let me know your opinion regarding the best way forward in this case. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.K., I'm kind of worn out from Wikipedia today, and, thankfully, I'm going to get off in a moment. I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Bbb23. No obligation or rush at all. Thank you very much for considering this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In my short time as an SPI trainee clerk, I've learned that the issue of tagging is a contentious one. Policies and templates contradict each other, not to mention the practices of individual administrators and editors in this area. If I had my way, I'd make it simple. Only administrators would be able to add tags or remove them, and there'd be a thorough discussion to make the tagging consistent. In terms of this individual crusade by Greg, I'd bring up the issue at the talk page of WP:SOCK and see if you get any reactions there. My guess is no one will be bothered that much by the removal of tags from unblocked IPs. I sampled a few of Greg's edits, and given that the tags were added by non-admins, it doesn't bother me all that much for them to be removed. Just as an aside, some administrators believe that IPs should never be tagged. One more thing. WP:HSOCK doesn't apply to IPs but to all users.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, tagging of IPs should be restricted only to cases where a significant number of "sock edits" are traceable to the specific IP, and where there is no possibility of having an "innocent bystander" be faced with that tag -- especially for such cases as IP addresses linked to schools where it is likely that new students will be faced with the detritus from previous students, etc. Indeed, I would suggest this is an extension of how we deal with "living persons" - that is, contentious claims about a person who was quite likely not involved in socking as a "sock" should be removed. There are, indeed, some IPs which are tagged, and properly so, but cases where single edits are found should generally not be so tagged. All IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bbb23 for the information. I agree also with Collect's points. The problem is, according to my experience with K-pop articles, there are certain geolocations which chronically edit-war unsourced BLP information about birthdays and positions into these articles. Many of these IP addresses strongly indicate they are from a rather narrow IP range. This information could be useful in case a range-block was ever necessary. I remember one instance where one IP was blocked as a sock through checkuser. But as Drmies mentioned we could go the other way and semi the articles involved. In any case thank you both for your feedback. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nom nom nom

Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

We can't have you starving now can we?

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Oh, I dunno, I kinda liked playing Camille. Thanks, Ponyo. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit issue

[17] User Farolif on the Hun Sen article is reverting me. I am thinking it is o.k. to use what I have used on the article page and he is saying no, that it is not neutral. Its a legit news source and they say it, and it updates the situation of that particular person in that particular place [18] so I paraphrased it and used it. I noticed a previous action you made with that person and am wondering if what he is doing now constitutes a kind of creeping edit war. I asked him to talk page the issue but no luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an edit war to me at this point. Don't let it become one. As for your edit, you may think you paraphrased it, but if I saw it, I'd remove it as a copyright violation without regard to any other problems it may have.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abusive IP socks

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked the dynamic 201.215.187.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months on 13 August; mainly, as you said, because of their sock puppetry threat. Yeah... I think 200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person, per WP:DUCK: same ISP, same city, same charm. See their talkpage. Unfortunately, those two can't be blocked as a "range", it would be massive. How are you on range blocks? Is there anything we can do, other than blocking 200.73.232.97 as well? (I'm holding off on that until they respond to me, but considering their reception of User:Thomas.W, I'm not expecting a very warm welcome.) What annoys me is that 201.215.187.159 stopped editing on 13 August (obviously) and 200.73.232.97 didn't start until 26 September. I just bet there were some little duckies in between, and will be more. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I'm just slightly better on range blocks than I used to be, which isn't saying much. I ususally go to User:Kww when I have these kinds of questions. I believe User:Diannaa is knowledgeable as well. If there's a pattern to the edits, sometimes a filter can eliminate the disruption, but there has to be enough evidence to justify the filter. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Range block looks out of the question: too wide, and no convenient subnets are apparent, either.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything I know about range blocks I learned from Bish's talk page -- Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought you knew what you were doing. I'm still working on "convenient subnets".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Mysogynist" and WP::Label

As you have effectively forbidden discussion of this on the Men's Rights Movement talk page, I believe it is entirely appropriate to take the issue up on your talk page. As I'm sure you are aware, [[WP::Label]] states that a label should not be used unless it is "widely" so used by RS. In practice, the label "terrorist" is applied when one or more governments apply the label -- e.g. Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, etc. I would ask you to apply the same standard to the Men's Rights Movement article. That is, if one or more governments have stated that the MRM is "mysogynist", it would be appropriate to use the label in the lede of the article. Otherwise, it would not. I request that you apply the policy the same way it is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)