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.

New Additions

Regarding the new additions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Redmayne, I think that they should stay because the information is both true and relevant. If you think that it is poorly worded then simply reword it. There is no need to erase it completely.

user Winkelvi is being disruptive again and stirring up drama

Hello Bbb23,

User Winkelvi has become disruptive again during the RFC here: [1] I started the RFC in good faith because the user winkelvi and I had a content dispute over a passage from the article of Simon Collins.

I explained my reasoning on the subject article's talk page, but winkeli was reticent to comment on the content of the passage and then has continued to argue, cause drama, and drag an administrator Drmies in to look at the situation here: [2]

Drmies asked winkelvi to present evidence that I had "followed him/her to certain articles. Winkelvi then listed a group of articles there, most of which where the "Kbabej" created articles that I have been continuing to work on editing, cleaning-up, and adding info to. Of course you had instruvted winkelvi that they were not to edit any article that kbabej had created or ever edited. It looks like the list is long, but it was not any kind of following but instead, after winkelvi was banned from working on the Kbabej articles I did continue to edit and work with the articles.

Winkelvi is trying to create a false impression by using the situation where he was blocked for working on kbabej articles, and I then have been working on the articles as me FOLLOWING him. Please assess this situation and take whatever actions that you may deem appropriate. Thank you for your time. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's too late for me to look at this tonight. Drmies is free, as always, to do whatever he wants and will no doubt back up any action he takes with colorfully incisive language.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies hasn't had that much time to look at all of this yet, since he sacrificed Wikipedia for the Nightly Show and Inside Amy Schumer, which was great. I think Winkelvi's listing of the That Bass Tour AfD is irrelevant since WordSeventeen apparently has an interest in Meghan Trainor, but the only one I actually looked at, Walter O'Brien, was first edited by Winkelvi in November 2014, and first by WordSeventeen on 8 April 2015, right after a series by Winkelvi. I'm kind of reluctant to peruse the rest of the list since I really don't want to find evidence that Winkelvi is right, about this pattern; I'd rather not feel obligated to peruse any future article histories, which is why I left a warning/advisory note. I'm not familiar with Kbabej but I don't think they have anything to do with the O'Brien article, unless there's some sock edit. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Kbabej articles are significant in this situation or what that editor has to do with W17 following me around Wikipedia. Unless W17 is another sock in the overflowing drawer of Kbabej, the fact that Kbabej was involved with articles on that list is not at all germane to the topic or my complaint/frustration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Content of Deleted page

I require the content for Delhi Public School Vadodara that was deleted by you recently for recreating the page. If possible kindly also state the precautions while restoring a page. Thunderlagoon (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb, what's the p-word? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• The content of that page is promotional and poorly written, and not verified by reliable sources: the only possibly reliable thing is this, which sings the praises of someone who may have attended the school. I don't see any reason to restore that content anywhere, esp. not since it was created by a sock puppet, Urbantown (talk · contribs), a sock of Sanjoy64 (talk · contribs). If anything, this invites CU be run. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• You're such a smarty, Drmies, and you're so right.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, the user is already on a CU request list, as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdemenil, which was basically caused by a sockpuppet mess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. I used the above as evidence for adding them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• You know what it is, Joseph, they let just anyone clerk and run CU. When I was young, we did things differently. It's a sad and beautiful world--and that's a line from Bbb's favorite movie. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A word of caution, Joseph, don't believe everything Drmies says. He spends a chunk of his time with oblique references that no one understands but him. It's his way of reducing his Wikipedia stress. When Drmies was young, the web didn't exist, let alone Wikipedia. He also doesn't know what my favorite movie is. I'm not sure I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for helping to resolve that complex SPI Trout71 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Brice Stratford

surprising. i became really active here just a few years ago, and in that time i have never seen such an ugly abuse of WP by (apparently) a single user, with fake refs and all. you may have seen much worse... but i really don't understand the decision. and after i took a lot of time to show the problem with difs. (that was probably 2 hours of work). can you please say more about why you don't think the clear meat/socking should be acknowledged, accounts blocked, etc? (it is a real question - i don't want to ever waste that much time again, if there is no point.) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some comments in my decline, but the accounts make the same comments as before, admitting they are using the same computers. The article has been deleted. The accounts have stopped editing. You want them blocked for supposed meat puppetry even though there's nothing for them to do here anymore? Reaper Eternal made a similar point, although with less elaboration, a day before you reopened the SPI. I'm sorry you spent so much time, but you have to admit that part of it is your own stubbornness. God knows I'm not averse to blocking accounts when there's a basis for doing so, but blocking these accounts makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Bbb23, it's clear to those of us who have researched the matter and have been following it all along that BriceStratford is blatantly lying (WP:BROTHER is a convenient excuse, isn't it?) -- in the same way that he has fabricated numerous citations -- and that these are obvious socks. I think the thing that needs to happen is all 30 to 40 of the accounts need to be listed all together in one place (instead of five here, ten there, ten there, ten somewhere else). The pattern of editing is very clear, down to the identical citation style, the use of fake refs, the articles/subjects they create and/or contribute to (all of them COI to Stratford), the style of writing, the editing in very distinct shifts, the edit summaries, the non-overlap, non-edit-conflict and non-interference of each other and each other's edits. They never copyedit or correct each other; it's obviously a single voice acting completely in sync and in lockstep. I don't think the fact that it is time-consuming (or the fact that he [i.e., all of the socks] has calmed down now that he's been outed) is a reason to ignore the most blatant and outrageous case of bamboozlery seen on Wikipedia for a long time. Perhaps a WP:LTA page could be established for various trackers to contribute to. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. 3 things.

• these accounts were editing as recently as this month.
• I had nothing to do with the original filing, and to be frank when I came across this at COIN i have found softlavender's efforts to be too handwavy, which is why i went through the work of looking carefully and gathering diffs (and why i guess the 1st case was closed without action). nothing stubborn in my effort, that i see.
• the sock/meat farm has worked on maybe 10 articles (not sure without it in front of me) not just 1. i have a lot of work left to do, to undo the hoax/promotion that this set of accounts have pushed into WP and it would be useful to have all those accounts shut down in parallel with that, so WP really says "no" to this, and makes them think twice about just starting right back up.

articles with fake content based on fake sources about brice and his (supposed?) relatives and theater and awards etc is not going to kill anyone but what they have done is ... well really ugly, and really abusive of WP. so i really don't get the dismissiveness. sorry, i just don't get it. will you not reconsider? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, none of the accounts has edited since April 8. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point. Are there any that have edited very recently?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

nope. none of them have. the SPI case was filed on March 31. if your point is that the SPI filing scared them off, how is that reason to not follow through? Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just FYI, there are at least 25 articles the farm has edited on conjointly. There are approximately 35 to 40 known members of the farm. Also, there's every possibility that if the Owle Schreame Awards are held this year (last year they were in September), the farm will start up again, if not before. Just because Straford is lying low now does not mean he wil not start up again when he thinks people may have forgotten. Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• If the disruption resumes in the future, you're welcome to reopen the SPI. I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i appreciate your time. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Block Notice

[3] Thank you, I was under the mistaken impression that block notices shouldn't be removed but after checking its declined unblock requests. Ah well you live and learn. WCM_email 21:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's understandable. There was a time when many people, including yours truly, interpreted the policy to disallow removal of block notices. Because of that interpretation conflict, the policy was "clarified".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up

I actually moved on shortly before the IP even filed that, but I hope it's okay to ask a question on one of the points you made when closing the report.

In regard to this bit in particular: "Amaury should not mess with Loriendrew's Talk page except in egregious circumstances (this wasn't one of those)." Per WP:DTTR, it says to not template the regulars, but who exactly is classified as a regular? I was under the impression that it was anyone who has been mostly active for a few years going by the word "regular," and that's why I removed the IP's warning from the other user's talk page, but I guess not.

Could you please clarify what qualifies as a valid removal of a warning on another user's profile in cases like this? Thanks! :) - Amaury (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm not a big adherent of not templating the regulars. Sometimes they need it. But, as with many things, it depends. Here we have an IP who really was unjustly accused. I don't think it's fair to expect them to leave a personalized message. Besides, Loriendrew can remove the warning if they wish. BTW, while hunting down your report of the IP to AIV (the link the IP provided didn't work), I saw how many good reports you've made. Way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you. It's appreciated.

Yeah, I've matured and learned a lot over the years, but mistakes still happen to the best of us and we even sometimes get involved in AIV. The important thing is that they're not part of a pattern, which they're not -- now, anyway -- but they were a long time ago for me, unfortunately, and I went through quite a few bumps to get to where I am now. But hey, that eventually helped me grow. - Amaury (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Arcane150

Hi Bbb23, Can you talk a look at the talk page and edit history of User talk:Arcane150...I've recently reverted them for vandalism/disruptive edits to the False accusation of rape and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I went to leave user a warning on their talk page and saw they have already received a final warning from another editor, and edit history shows they were previously warned by you via edit summary for their edits to Dallas Buyers Club. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: The user probably deserves to be blocked now, but let's wait to see if he continues. If he makes one more similar disruptive edit, either take him to WP:AIV or let me know, and if I'm on-wiki, I'll consider blocking him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Apologies for not taking the better path and reporting, and instead continuing the edit war. That is totally my bad, and it won't happen again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

BLPN Revert war

Honestly, as an administrator you're going to get into a revert war on the BLP noticeboard? Please take some time off and look at this again tomorrow. EmonyRanger (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@EmonyRanger: My action on BLPN is administrative. Therefore, you have no right to revert it. If you do so again, you risk being blocked. Your only justification for leaving it the way it was is to help the blocked user keep his "links" intact. His "need" to keep those links intact is far outweighed by having the discussion about the article be in one place at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

user talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger

Yes I do. Can Mighty Morphin Army Ranger set up an email address and ask a an administrator such as yourself to make the removal for him/her? Or is email access blocked as well? -- PBS (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: His e-mail access is not disabled, but I do not know whether he set up an e-mail address when he created the account or in the event he didn't whether he can do so later while blocked. Someone probably knows the answers to those questions, but not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

MMAR apparently told another editor to remove my comments from his talk page so he is finding a way to communicate with others. Maybe IRC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not IRC, but rather an off-wiki forum that was discussing matters and a link to which someone had posted on a discussion page after MMAR's block. (I'm not going to link to it because it contains a non-controversial semi-outing, but a semi-outing nonetheless.) MMAR must have seen the link; he apparently joined the forum and made the request there; I guess the third editor saw the request. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is the same forum but I was given a link to a WO thread where MMAR indicated that he wanted some talk page comments removed. I was trying to offer some constructive advice but I guess he found it unhelpful. Shrug. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol

Hi, User talk:Khestwol is unnecessarily calling me "nationalistic user" [4] ; aggressively and intentionally putting dubious/false information that cannot be verified. I need your help.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they should not have called you a "nationalistic user" in an edit summary, but as far as the content, I have nothing to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bdemenil

You checkuser-blocked this editor a couple of days ago, and I came across his unblock request. I asked him a follow-up question on his talkpage, and he has responded. Could you please take a look at it and either respond there or, if more appropriate, off-wiki. Please note that I'm not taking any position on the unblock request at this point, just making sure the information is considered and responded to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: We are preparing to leave for Europe tomorrow, and my time is limited. Take a look at this request. It appears to conflict with Bdemnil's comments. Also, Bdemnil's response about Khmer15 is inaccurate. Vwikiv doesn't even address Khmer15. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with details about Khmer15 offline because you're no longer a checkuser. I did however run my findings by another checkuser. Finally, Bdemnil's statement that the vwikiv account is new is also untrue. It was created in December 2013.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Not only am I no longer a checkuser, but I wouldn't have known much about how to interpret the results even when I was one. I do think it is desirable, however, for another CU to respond to the unblock request. Maybe you could post to Functionaries-l or Checkuser-l asking that a CU reply on the user's talkpage, given the policy against non-CUs reviewing checkuser-blocks? Enjoy your trip! Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brief question

Why is EmonyRanger's former userpage not allowed to stick? He's been blocked for sock puppetry, but he'll be back within a month, so... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As another clarification, your revert to my edit says "you've been *told* not to do this". I am not tagging the sockmaster, I'm simply restoring content that I think doesn't have to be blanked just yet, unless the account gets blocked indefinitely. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your point is a distinction without a difference. Let me make it more clear to you. Do not interfere with socking matters, whether it's tags or effectively partially reverting a checkuser, doesn't matter what it is. If you think it's wrong, then go to the administrator, clerk, or checkuser who tagged the page in the first place. I don't want to tell you this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Basically it means not to touch any sock(master) userpages. The first time I was told this seemed a little incomplete in that case (even if I don't touch the sock templates). Thank you for re-clarifying this. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Documentation for {{Sockpuppet}}, etc. templates

Hi Bbb23. So I'm wondering how you think the best way to handle this issue is, then. The documentation definitely needs to be made clearer, IMO, so that unsuspecting "regular" editors don't accidentally use these templates when they probably shouldn't. Is there something that can be added to these suite of 'sockpuppet' templates' docs that would be satisfactory here?... --IJBall (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that part of the reason it's never been made clear is that it's complicated. I have very little time at the moment as I'm preparing for vacation. I suggest you raise it at WT:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock active at Andreas Kaplan

A February SPI ended with your comments "In the absence of more edits by the puppet, I'm not convinced that the account is a sock... I also note that the account hasn't been used since January, which makes it unlikely that the account is going to continue to edit the Kaplan article and articles related to Kaplan... consider this a decline without prejudice if the account resumes editing." Well, it looks like IPs really similar to those noted in the February report are still at it, as recently as today. What do you advise? — Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Doing nothing. My comments actually related to the named account, not the IPs. That said, the IP you noted above is not on its face the same as any of the IPs listed at the SPI, but even assuming they're hopping around, it's only one edit, which can hardly be considered disruptive. Annoying maybe. If it gets significantly worse, you can ask another admin to take action, maybe semi-protect the page. It's unlikely I'll be on-wiki unless it happens soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged; thanks for the reply. — Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Lighthouse (software)" article deletion

I would like to ask you and explanation of why you deleted the page Lighthouse (software). There are actually 36 crowdfunding services listed in Wikipedia (Comparison of crowdfunding services), all of them with their respective individual pages.

Thank you, Rhcastilhos (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a alternative platform for a company's website.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyril Smith

Why are you removing his title? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that WP:HONORIFIC prohibited the use of "Sir" in the opening sentence and in the name at the top of the infobox. After rereading it, my memory is wrong. Sorry about that. Thanks for putting it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

I need your help regarding the recent conduct of Human3015. Human3015 was blocked recently for 3RR after engaging in an edit war with me at Indian subcontinent. Since then, he's followed me to multiple places, including the Rahuloof report at AN3, a matter which did not involve him, and where he resorted to personal accusations against me. As you are aware, you handed out warnings to everyone there. Recently, he's followed me (refer to page histories) to Xi Jinping's visit to Pakistan 2015, Gilgit-Baltistan, Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Ajit Doval (where he engaged me), 2014 Peshawar school massacre, got involved at Talk:Kargil War#Kargil War Result (another article he's never edited and where he obviously got to by following me), and now Bihari community in Bangladesh (where he made his first edit two days after I edited that article) and where he's again confronting my edits and edit warring at the talk page. Could you please take some form of action over this tedious form of hounding? I have asked him multiple times, first at AN3, and now at his talk page to not follow me, but he instead accuses me of harrassment. Mar4d (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is on vacation (see note at top of this page). Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am aware he's on vacation. I don't mind if other admins/involved users have a look. @Magog the Ogre:, @RegentsPark:, @Kautilya3:: Your take on this? Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, I can see why you feel you are being hounded, but I don't think that is the case. Both of you are interested in India-Pakistan issues and it is natural for you two to run into each other. Human3015 is a relatively new user. So, please give him a break and humour him. I think he is well-meaning overall. I have recommended to both of you to practice 0RR. Communication is the key to avoiding conflicts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Editing in the same topic area is not an excuse for stalking an editor's contributions and confronting their edits. All these are articles which Human3015 has never edited, where's he followed me and where he's confronting my edits and opening up disputes. This is tedious behaviour known as WP:HOUNDING. Mar4d (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. But, since Human3015 has denied that he is stalking you, you can't keep on making the accusation. If you don't believe it, you should take it to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't knew that you own all those articles, but those were on my watchlist, and tell me what changes I made?? means tell me where I reverted you? --Human3015 09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh

Hello Mr Admin, Once here on Edit warring notice board, you told us(me and Mar4d) to report on your talk page if anyone involves in unjustified edits and don't indulge in edit war. So I'm asking for your intervention here, Mar4d is keep on moving page Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh to Bihari community in Bangladesh, while is not having any evidence for him. The most common term used for those people is "Stranded Pakistanis" and used by The New York Times(US), BBC(UK), The Guardian(UK), Dawn(Pakistan), Express Tribune(Pakistan), Daily Sun(Bangladesh). These are leading news papers of respective nations. You can see our discussion and sources Talk page, Biharis in Bangladesh . That page was moved by another user, no one has consensus with current name. Mar4d is not proving any source for his claim. --Human3015 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think any contentitious page move should be done after discussion, and if necessary, through an RfC. I will try to get the page protected from moves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015, it is hard to take you seriously when you are bent upon hounding me to articles and confronting whatever edits I make, as well as meddling in situations that do not involve you. I edited that article and this is the fifth or sixth article where you followed me. You came later to revert me and are now edit warring over the title. How do you defend your hounding behaviour? Mar4d (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

dear friend Mar4d, why you are not providing proofs that I disrupted your edits instead of charging me?? That page was moved by another user and not by me. And you don't have any proofs for your claim on that page so you are talking out of focus. --Human3015 10:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015 As Kautilya3 says above, if you believe you have a valid complaint against Mar4d then I suggest you file a report at either the administrators incident or edit warring noticeboard. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG though.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Philg88, thanks for your reply, other admin protected that page from moving, Mar4d was moving page without having consensus, though discussion is still going on talk page, Most of editors are in favour of name Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh which is most widely and commonly used. --Human3015 16:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Question

Note on CheckUser request. I thought that CU data could be used 'internally' to back up behavioral evidence to determine SOCKs in an SPI but the results of the CU would not be disclosed. Is that not the case? Jbh^Talk 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: See the vacation note up top? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ah... Thanks! The question was just to clear up a SPI request from a couple days ago with a couple IP SOCKS of a named account and edit summary question Bbb23, possibly rhetorically, asked . No big deal. Jbh^Talk 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

More harassment of TheRedPenOfDoom by Andy Dingley

A while back you said that if Andy Dingley persisted in harassing RedPenOfDoom then you would block him. He is now edit-warring with RedPen to add unsourced content to an article against WP:BURDEN. [5] I would ask you to think about blocking him. We've all had enough of this guy. 82.132.221.233 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)