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.

Happy New Year!

Dear Bbb23,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Madangarli

Hi Bbb23,

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Madangarli, Wikipedia talk:Madangarli, User:Manojmkn, and User talk:Manojmkn. You'll see why...Thanks -War wizard90 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind another admin took care of it. Thanks -War wizard90 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How Do I appeal Your Ban Of Me At Gordon B. Hinkcley

How do you justify banning me at Gordon B. Hickley? I refrain from editing and report edit warriors and you ban me?Mormography (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to increase your risk of being blocked, you can complain about my warning (not a ban) at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not a warning, ban. You made it clear that if I revert in that section I will be blocked. I did everything as I was instructed to do my administrators in previous encounters. I followed the rules. I ceased editing. Trodel was clearly, clearly edit warning. AndyTheGrump was clearly clearly continuing it. It was not a frivolous report.

My prior instruction: "FYI: WP:EW does not specify a fixed number of edits which constitute an edit war. You are confusing an edit war with the three revert rule, which is a line that should not be crossed." —DoRD (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Further this his is what I have found:

If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process further). For another possibility, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly.

From your tone, you refusing to discuss. Is this correct? Again, why is Trodel allowed to make an unexplained edit with consensus and I am not? Mormography (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My final comment. First, you did not report Trodel; you reported Andy. Second, Trodel, like Andy, made only one revert and was not involved in the edit-warring earlier in the article. Thus, if you had reported Trodel, the outcome and the warning would have been the same. Finally, although one can be blocked for edit-warring without having breached WP:3RR, blocking an editor based on one revert would only be done in very limited circumstances, which aren't present here.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the disconnect. I did not ask for anyone to be blocked! Trodel was in fact edit warring, whether or not he was earlier edit warring. However, so far Trodel has not continued to edit war, ergo he/she was not reported. AndyTheGrump did continue to edit war, ergo he/she was reported. Fact is edit warring occurred. I did the right thing in reporting and you have erred in punishing the user that behaved according to the rules.Mormography (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The 'facts' are entirely visible in the article history, and on the article talk page - and now also on the edit-warring noticeboard. Trödel made an edit. Mormography reverted it. Both of which would have been entirely acceptable under WP:BRD. What was not however acceptable was for Mormography to describe this single edit as 'edit-warring' and refuse point-blank to actually explain why he objected to it. In my opinion, Trödel's edit was a considerable improvement - it removed quotes which lacked attribution (one could look it up in the reference, but common sense would suggest that if an article quotes somebody, it should say who is being quoted), and clarified a confusing statement about a forgery 'implicating' something. If Mormography had objections, it was open to him to explain why, but instead we have had this ridiculous time-wasting nonsense about imaginary 'edit-wars' - which it appears that Mormography wishes to continue on the article talk page [1] I only got involved in this dispute because I think that we should at least attempt to write articles that make sense, and which don't confuse readers who aren't as familiar with the subject as contributors who appear to have been arguing about it for the best part of a decade. I see no reason whatsoever why Mormography's POV (whatever that is - his statements regarding the issue have been so confused I'm not entirely sure what he is arguing for) should be imposed through the endless repetitive tendentiousness we have been faced with, and I suggest that a substantial block may be the appropriate course of action - it might at least give Mormography the opportunity to figure out how to explain in comprehensible English what the hell he thinks is wrong with the article, and what exactly it is he proposes we should do about it. Assuming that there actually is an explanation beyond a simple wish to have the last word... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You see Bbb23. Admin GoodOlfactory has already agreed that many the same things AndyTheGrump says above are just plain incivility. You see now how this is not at all about one edit? I stopped editing the article. I reported. I did not ask anyone to be blocked. I ceased editing and reported editing warring so that discuss could occur. I have thoroughly explained Trodel's edit warring if it was not already self evident. The edit war page and Admin DoRD all indicate that multiple reverts is just a hardline, not that edit warring has not occurred. AndyTheGrump's does nothing with the above but vindicate that I was correct in reporting in the first place. This is edit warring on his part and has nothing to do with a single edit.Mormography (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Further 'just plain incivility' here [2] - I've had enough of this crap. Mormography lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia, and should be given the boot. Permanently. Not 'indefinitely', permanently. POV-pushers are bad enough, but POV-pushers who lack the basic language skills to actually explain what POV they are trying to push into articles? We can manage well enough without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you're, er, Andy, but "a semi-literate time-wasting incompetent POV-pushing troll" et al really is a bit overkill when you're talking to a new user. I wouldn't give two shit if you called me an incompetent POV-pushing troll and I doubt Bbb would care if you did the same to him, but behaving like that towards new editors is likely to be offputting to other new editors even when you're right that a new user has hugely problematic editing. I'll indef Mormography if you don't object to me temping you for the same set of interactions =p. I've never bothered suggesting blocking you for even a day before because you may be a grump but you're also fairly consistently right, but that much overkill in conversations with editors who clearly aren't expecting it or okay with it almost certainly has the effect of deterring other new editors - some of whom will benefit the encyclopedia - even when you direct it towards people who you are appropriately suggesting won't benefit the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This 'new user' has been editing since 2009. Almost exclusively to LDS-related articles (hence the username, I assume). If you like, I'll withdraw the 'troll', but the illiteracy is demonstrated above, and competent POV-pushers (or even competent non-POV-pushers) generally manage to explain what they are trying to achieve with an article after posting as much as Mormography has on the article talk page. I've certainly not been able to make any sense of it. Somehow forged documents are supposed to be evidence of something Joseph Smith actually did, though quite why and how has never been explained. And I get the strong impression that it isn't intended to be explained. Instead, lumbering readers with confusing text seems to be the objective, as far as I can tell. The facts, from what I can gather (I'll freely admit to not having read all the sources) are that Mark Hofmann forged a whole lot of LDS-related documents, and that Hinckley was amongst his victims, having bought a document supposedly showing that Joseph Smith used some sort of magical hocus-pocus to hunt for treasure. Probably not the expected behaviour of a Prophet, and one can understand why Hinckley, as a senior LDS counselor would prefer the document not to be in circulation (whether he thought the document was real - as seems possible - or a forgery). The fact is though, that the document was shown to be a forgery, and whatever these events tell us about Hinckley, they don't tell us anything about Smith. Except for Mormography, who seems for whatever reason to want the article to say that they 'implicated Smith' in the hocus-pocus. This strange use of the word 'implicated' was all that brought me into the discussion in the first place - and all I've asked is for the article to be written in a way that made sense to readers who haven't already read all the gory details. Mormography though, seems to think that a 'consensus' supposedly arrived at in 2007 (when as far as we know, he wasn't editing?) matters more than actually making sense for readers. The sad thing is, I thought we'd finally got Mormography to agree that the wording was inadequate - evidently not, as Mormography used Trödel's edit as an excuse to restore the very phrase we'd been arguing over, and utterly refused to explain why. This is time-wasting on a monumental scale, and worse it reflects directly on article content - it is surely a waste of our readers' time to expect them to have to read confusing statements about forgeries which seem to assume that the reader already knows the details. The whole paragraph needs rewriting, in as much as it assumes prior knowledge about Hofmann, and what bombings have to do with anything - but trying to do anything about it while a contributor floods the talk page with confusion and obstructionism is near impossible. This sort of behaviour is a liability to Wikipedia, and I have to suggest that we owe it to our readers to put a stop to it. There is no shortage of overt POV-pushing evident in articles, and likewise no shortage of poorly-worded confusion. I suspect our readers expect this, at least on occasion. What they should not have to put up with though is wording that seems deliberately intended to confuse. Or obscure. Or insinuate something or other. About someone (Smith) who wasn't even the subject of the article. If Mormography has a reliable source which states that Smith actually did involve himself with hocus-pocus treasure-hunting, he is welcome to argue for its inclusion in the article on Smith (though there seems to be material on this already) - it's no skin off my nose as a non-Mormon, an atheist, and someone who's response to conservatively-dressed eager young men turning up on the doorstep to bring me glorious news from the American midwest is generally entirely in accord with my Wikipedia username. I don't really care that much about Mormons, Hinckley, Hoffman or hocus-pocus treasure hunts. What I care about (maybe more than is good for me) is that we at least make a token effort to write a comprehensible encyclopaedia - and accordingly, when confronted with someone who has devoted so much time and effort to making the thing intentionally obscure, I eventually resort to harsh words - harsh words expressing an underlying truth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I hit the wrong button on the guy's edit history. In any case though, I still doubt there's much to be gained from frequently flaming the hell out of editors, as some are certainly deterred from joining or from sticking around because of our general acceptance of aggressive flaming (I've met at least a couple handfuls of worthwhile editors myself who fall in to that bucket,) and at this point I doubt it's very hard for you to get people gone when it's needed even without such behavior (if you have issues, when I manage not to be hospitalized you can always ping me.) I do agree that the situation is silly and shall rectify the part of it that a blockstick can once I wrap up one other thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thought I'd chime in with my two cents after I happened to notice this spectacle. Mormography; you are not banned from contributing to the article, but please note that you risk being blocked if you continue to blanket revert just about any change coming in to the article. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to the article or talkpage, please do so. If not, please refrain from accusing others of edit warring. As Bbb23 mentioned when he closed the EW-report, you're lucky not to be blocked, and I second that. You show tendencies of ownership of the article as well as bad-faith against other editors, and you have this chance to actually contribute. You have been blocked for disruption and edit-warring on multiple occasions earlier, and if you end up blocked again it's likely to be for a couple of weeks or more. If there are bits of the article you want to remove, I suggest that you start a new section for each part; describe in details what and why (with references if applicable). Bjelleklang - talk 13:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Page wrongfully deleted - Sasha Unisex

I created a Wikipedia page about notable tattoo artist, Sasha Unisex. I had published the page with little about her credits and why she is notable, but was planning to add it in. I came on today to make sure it looked good, but realized that you had deleted it. I think there are many useless and false pages on Wikipedia and you should delete those and not mine. I am recreating the Sasha Unisex page, this time with sources and reasons why she is important. Do not delete it again. PickleG13 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up

That particular user has a habit of leaving death threats on the page of anyone that interferes in his weekly rants. It might be best to semi your talk page for a few hours. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 00:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 00:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Global Peace and Unity

Dear Bbbb23, I hope you are well. Please could you have a look at the recent edits on the Global Peace and Unity page? Am I missing something? The last editor keeps re-inserting unreferenced contentious claims, but says they are referenced. Thank you, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the material should be included or, if so, whether it should be recrafted. However, as the article stands currently, the material is supported by the first source. I didn't bother looking at the other two.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Julie Kavner revision 648377378

Just curious: why the single brackets ? And since when links don't go in quotes ? Thanks --Webwizard (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First question: "Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations, though this should never alter the intended meaning". (WP:BRACKETS). Second question: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked". (WP:LINKSTYLE).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, seems complicated... :) I'll have to look better into that... Nevertheless, thank you --Webwizard (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. I didn't catch the purpose of the single brackets (I thought it was a typo), but I have now. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks again...--Webwizard (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldjoe2

Oldjoe2 is a sockpuppet of Mirrortoamermaid and his vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smart (healthcare administrator) is abusive.[3] Since you have already closed the report at WP:SPI, let me post the evidence on this Talk page.

Mirrortoamermaid was involved with pages concerning Birmingham University. He started several pages on Birmingham University alumni; some of them are non-notable. See: [4]. In "Judges" segment, there is Alan Taylor. On 17 February 2015, Mirrortoamermaid stopped editing. The account Oldjoe2 was created on 20 February 2015. He started the page on Alan Taylor and voted on the AFD. Oldjoe2 contributes exactly like Mirrortoamermaid. This is a case of WP:DUCK. UI1990 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just go to WP:SPI and put in Mirrortoamermaid as the master, and it will then start a new investigation based on whatever evidence you have. I don't want to handle this on my Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom

She or he has been gone for some time but has recently returned and resumed her edit war on the Conan Chronologies page. She is consistently removing well-sourced material contributed by knowledgeable editors and defying consensus, despite not having sufficient knowledge of the subject matter. I'm requesting intervention, and most preferably a permanent edit ban from this page. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On March 9 I see two reverts by you and two reverts by TRPoD. I'm not intervening; nor do I have the power to unilaterally impose a ban on any editor except in very limited circumstances, which don't exist for this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

please stop vandalizing

if you think that something is not correct, spend some time to correct instead of vandalizing the whole page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:AC51:A893:D914:73E (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar Barnstar Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar for all your work involving the SPI concerning Tirgil34, Uniquark9, Ancientsteppe... et.al. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about admins

Is there anywhere to file such a complaint, apart from with other admins? (Who suffer from an obvious CoI, in judging their peers and 'friends.') I think that the capricious and inconsistent reasoning that you used to justify my block make you and the guy whose original block you affirmed unfit to be admins. Please let me know to whom at the Wikimedia foundation I can send my complaint.

Best regards,

Miss Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would complain to the WMF. The usual forum for complaining about administrative behavior is WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And what when you are being told that you will get 'blocked' if you post anything to ANI and many other boards[5]? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because you were told that doesn't mean that Steeletrap has been told that. It seems more likely you're here to vent, but the admin you need to discuss this with is Drmies, not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post more on that SPI? Thank you for writing there, and JJ did not always capitalized discussion page.[6] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you need to stop harassing JJ (so, no). It's real simple, and bitching about other users, administrators or not, can quickly become blockable too. Steeletrap, AN may do as well for a complaint, I suppose, but I urge you to do so without the "belittling" of others for which you have been warned before. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I'm the victim here. I've been labeled a sock on the basis of inadequate evidence. The SP allegations were initially dismissed by the admin; they were reopened solely because one of the admin's 'friends' said he thought the evidence had merit, without saying why he thought that. I was later convicted on the basis of the same evidence that had initially garnered a swift dismissal. When I asked the admin what evidentiary standard he used to convict me, he said the standard was "reasonable likelihood." Previously, I was told that the standard was much higher ("beyond reasonable doubt"). Does this sound like a competent or reasonable proceeding to you?

BBB- I want to contact Wikimedia, rather than admins, because I lack confidence in WP's admins. I think a phone call or Skype conference with a Wikimedia attorney, whose credentials and competence can be verified, would be much more fruitful than an ANI posting. You should understand my concerns, given the clearly capricious manner in which my SPI was dismissed and then reopened and then closed with a conviction for socking, based on the conspiracy theory that I have created a "spoof" IP address. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What's up with this fratty culture of secrecy among admins? It seems to me that the vast majority of proceedings--every one of those that does not implicate serious privacy issues--should be fully public. My SPI took about a month, and I never saw any of the "reasoning" or "research" that went into my conviction. What they accused/convicted me of was really quite remarkable. They say I 1) created a spoof Norwegian IP address and 2) used it solely to do things I could do using my real account, rather than using it to edit pages from which I am topic banned. This highly improbable conclusion should be justified by highly compelling reasoning; but instead, the reasoning the admins offered was fallacious and internally inconsistent.

The obvious inconsistencies in the admins' reasoning behind my ban sheds light on the need for more transparency. Most strikingly, the "team" who said I should be banned doesn't even know the evidentiary standard they used to convict me. (I shouldn't have said they were "lying" when they claimed they did have such a standard--that's the PA you banned me for--but the alternative explanation is actually less charitable to them.) I know this because when the SPI was initially dismissed--a fact that banning admin absurdly seems to have forgotten--the admin said the standard needed to convict me was 'beyond reasonable doubt.'Later--when they reversed themselves and convicted me--they said the standard they used was "reasonable likelihood." Steeletrap (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my final comment. You'll never get anywhere going to the WMF, but you are welcome to try. Your understanding of so many things is so flawed, I would have to provide you with a list, and I'm not going to take the time. I can't help you. And please don't post here on this or any related issue again.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Easybook

Hi I would like to understand the reason for deletion of Easybook. It stated promotion/advertising [7] I would like to have the scale of its promotional scale 1 to 10, hence I can write a better article about it. I believe Easybook is notable and huge brand recognition in South East Asia that qualify for a page in wiki. [8]

Request for review Sandbox:

My sandbox

Awdko00 (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a template so you can submit the draft to more experienced editors for review. The article read like a website, not like an encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on possible [sock|meat]puppetry

Greetings. You've already seen WhatsYourPrice (since userfied to User:Fateinourstars 91/draft). I did some poking around to SeekingArrangement and OpenMinded, all owned by Brandon Wade, and noticed that there are a some apparent SPAs devoted to adding promotional edits to the group:

• Fateinourstars 91 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Genericsn987 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Bling2bling (talk · contribs · logs)
• SeanHoade (talk · contribs · logs)
• 007 diamond (talk · contribs · logs)
• HoadeSean (talk · contribs · logs)
• Esain88 (talk · contribs · logs) (This edit even copies Bling2bling's sig...)

I don't know if the combined effect of the edits rises to the level of blockable abuse or if the puppetry merits a report at SPI, so I wanted to run it all by you for a second opinion or at least to get these links collected in one place. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall: I'm not prepared to block without an SPI, mainly because there are too many of them (some are pretty obvious, but I don't want to do piecemeal blocking). I think it would be a good idea for you to open an SPI. BTW, Bling2bling is the oldest account, so when you open it, that should be the sock master. Let me know when it's created. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Finngall ^talk 03:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Caspar John Hare

Dear Bbb23, why was the page on Caspar John Hare deleted? He's on the faculty at MIT, he teaches edX's Massive Open Online Course on Intro to Philosophy, his book was chosen as one of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles, has done a successful AMA on reddit, ... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezinnen (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article didn't say anything about any books he'd written or any "awards" he's received. Indeed, other than saying he's an associate professor at a well-known university, there wasn't anything in the article that established any encyclopedic significance. And the line "He is the heir apparent to his father, Michael John Hare, 2nd Viscount Blakenham" was hardly helpful to a serious article. That said, if you want me to WP:USERFY it for you with the understanding that you will submit it through WP:AFC so experienced editors can evaluate it before it goes live again, I'm willing to do that. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Fuad Viento

Hello, this article is about me and I want admins to delete it.--Azerifactory (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)