User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Caution
  • 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.

Question about IP block exemption[edit]

Hi. Where can I submit a request for IP block exemption right? I want to edit through proxy/vpn. Due to my internet service problems, I really need this future/user right. I'll discuss the details in my request. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Zyma: Read WP:EXEMPT. Your request appears to be part of condition 2, and I would read that too. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I read it, but I don't know what to do. Send an email to all responsible/checkuser admins? --Zyma (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't be fun for the recipients. The policy says to use WP:UTRS. Sometimes you can shorten the process by asking an administrator or checkuser who knows you well.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but I want Used for anonymous proxy editing feature/user right. It says "Email the functionaries team or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies." So just write my rationale for granting and contact a checkuser via his/her talk page? --Zyma (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I was reading the wrong section. You can either contact the Functionaries team or contact a checkuser directly. I'd take care of it for you if I felt more comfortable doing so, but I simply don't feel I understand how I'm supposed to evaluate these requests. Do you know a checkuser? If not, do you want to contact the Functionaries team, or do you want me to recommend a checkuser to go to? I think it might be better if you contact a checkuser to do so by e-mail rather than through their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Used for anonymous proxy editing, a checkuser admin (like you) decides about my request and approves/disapproves it, if the request is approved, then checkuser grants the user right to requester. If consultation is necessary, you can send a copy of my request to other related functionaries (admins who decide about this user right). I think admin Dougweller can help too. I will send my request (fully detailed and rationales) by email. Would you please review it? --Zyma (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Just e-mail Doug. I don't need to review it. If Doug needs anything from me, he knows where to find me. As an arbitrator, he is automatically a checkuser, although I don't think he uses the tool.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding the closure of the recent Tirgil34 SPI and notes on Bamsi2929 case[edit]

Hi Bbb23, welcome back from vacation and congratulations on becoming a CheckUser. I've noticed that you archived the recent Tirgil34 SPI after it was closed by Berean Hunter as a WP:TLDR. Though the investigation certainly became too large, i still think some of the users listed should be checked. Would filing a new shorter investigation with more concicely presented evidence be problematic? I also added some comments to the Bamsi2929 SPI which could be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: In response to your question about the Tirgil34 SPI, I think you should ask Berean Hunter if you haven't done so already. As for the other SPI, thanks for your comments. Could you please go back and sign them?Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I did initially ask Berean Hunter, and he has now stated that he has no objections to a refile. I have now performed that refile. If it is still WP:TLDR, please tell me. If the investigation is deeemed valid, i encourage you to perform the check, as you have previous experience dealing with Tirgil34 SPI's. On a sidenote, why was there no sanctions against Uniquark9 following the previous investigation against him? While you were on vacation i took the liberty of changing the tag on his sock BillKillB.[1] Face-smile.svg Krakkos (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know your plans[edit]

I was about to block User:Samidotkhan until I saw you delete their article. I'll hold off if you have a different plan. Tiderolls 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Heh, right after I deleted the article, I indeffed him as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw. I should've blocked them yesterday but they had just been blocked for 24 hrs and I thought, 'maybe you're wrong about them, Tide.' I wasn't. Tiderolls 01:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Bbb23 (talk)

I'll be happy to approve it, but I'm not sure your username can be "UTRS23"... your UTRS account name is what is used when signing replies and "UTRS23" kinda makes it seem like we're not humans, just numbered responders, y'know? Lemme know what I can rename you to, either Bbb23 or something similar -- most UTRS volunteers have UTRS account names close to their on-wiki name for the skae of simplicity and transparency (although not always exactly the same). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I would have chosen my Wikipedia username, but I wasn't sure if I could/should. That would be fine with me. Would the password I chose be the same if you rename it?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Done and done -- it shouldn't have changed the password, lemme know if you have trouble logging in! I will ask DQ to flag you as CU (I'm tooladmin but only tooldevs can flag CUs). Welcome aboard! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Log in works fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You previously closed out this [2] investigation on GingerBreadHarlot. At the time you indicated, correctly IMO, that the case hadn't been made. With recent edits, however, at Leo Frank it appears that the case can now be made. Another user opened this [3]. I'm not sure how much the original statement adds, but in the other comments section I have added details that the originator probably was not aware of. In any event, any action you feel appropriate to take would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@North Shoreman: Since I became a checkuser, I act only occasionally as a clerk at SPI. Based on the current report, a CU would not be warranted because everything is stale and we don't publicly disclose connections between IPs and registered users. That said, my superficial take is the filer is going to have some trouble because of the age of the IPs' edits, and you're going to have some trouble because of the complexity of your behavioral analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. It appears the referral is going to die a quiet death. Meanwhile, the RFC started at Leo Frank could serve as an example of what happens when sockpuppets go unchecked. The IP, GingerBreadHarlot, and a third user, Gulbenk (who started posting at Leo Frank soon after the last puppet of Machn was blocked) are all making the same arguments and playing off each other. I understand what you mean about complexity -- we all have to choose where we can best utilize our time while on wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ani[edit]

[[4]] not cause you did anything wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I Just Wanna... (Elijah Blake song)[edit]

Hi. The title says "I Just Wanna... (Elijah Blake song)", while the lead sections says "..is a song by American recording artist Nicki Minaj". That is why I tagged it as a hoax. --BiH (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, wouldn't it have been better to fix it (I just did)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just made an additional fix. I wanted to check with you as I presumed you did not notice the issue --BiH (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're correct; I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Zurich00swiss and their socks[edit]

As you today closed the latest SPI for Zurich00swiss and previously confirmed that User:Newdestination was a sock, would you take a look at the defence of Newdestination just placed on my talk page here by User:Wjkxy? Is it worth further examination? Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@RichardOSmith: The accounts are not related. My guess is the two users shared a common article interest and a common language. Take a look at Wjkxy's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes - it looks like Wjkxy is mistaken but not otherwise related. Many thanks for checking, and putting my mind at ease! RichardOSmith (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

I'm interested in becoming an SPI clerk trainee. That said, I wouldn't want to put my name on the consideration list if it meant I'd be skewered by admins and/or other editors at the request page. You've been harsh with me (in what I feel are fair and unfair ways) in the past regarding certain things, including SPI reports I've filed. Because of that, I'm asking for your opinion on whether or not it would be wise for me to put my name on the request trainee status list or foolhardy on my part - I believe you would give an honest opinion. Thanks,-- WV 22:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Sorry, but I don't think you have the right temperament or judgment to be an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
So, in other words, one must already have all the qualifications to be a clerk in order to be a clerk trainee? I thought the idea of one being a trainee is that they are molded into the position they would take, with the training period designed to get them there. And, if after the training is completed they still don't have what it takes, they aren't promoted to the position. What's the point of training if one already has the qualifications? -- WV 23:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't expect trainees to be fully qualified. Some experience with SPIs helps, but you actually have that, which is a positive. My comment refers to temperament and judgment. I expect a trainee to have that from the get-go as it's not generally something that can be easily "trained".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"Temperament" is something that is best observed and assessed in person. That's not something we can do in Wikipedia via text on a computer screen. Not always portraying my actual temperament (which is typically quite calm and flat, to be honest) precisely through what I write is something I have been working on steadily since I started editing Wikipedia and commenting on talk pages and in edit summaries. My personal assessment is that I have improved in that area and will continue to work on doing so -- that's part of growing as an editor and a human being. That's something that can and will change for me with time -- my "evolution" so to speak. Judgement: same. We all have a learning curve. We all have the ability to make progress in various areas -- editing, communicating, understanding of policies, etc. No one comes here perfect, and I don't believe trainees should come perfect, either. I'm trainable and moldable and when given a challenge to succeed, typically do so in a big way. Ah, well. Thanks for your time,-- WV 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Daft SPI[edit]

I seem to have obliterated part of a previous entry. Not intentional. I was adding some pertinent points and must have misplaced the cursor. Easily done. I didn't realise the case had already received attention as I went straight to the SPI after seeing one of the edits in my watchlist. So, apologies for the error but it must be obvious to you that it was an error. Okay? Anyway, thanks for attending to the case so quickly: it usually takes a few days. Jack | talk page 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on your history, I assumed it was an error, but I still felt the need to be a bit sharp in my edit summary. Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all right. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 04:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Account deletion[edit]

I don't really know how you did it but you managed to delete Wikipedia account of my business partner John I. whom we share office together. How can he claim his account back? I feel really bad that because of vendetta of some admins against me John lost his account... Wiki-shield (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which account are you talking about (the username)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I just spoke to him and it looks like his account (Mishash) is not deleted, he still can access it. I just got confused by "user doesn't exist" message when I clicked on account link, apparently John never bothered to create his user page in WP. My apology for false acquisition and I will remove my offensive message from Sockpuppet_investigations page, sorry I just got really pissed off that John got affected by my issues with WP. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A few things you should know. First, technically accounts are never really deleted at Wikipedia; they are blocked if Wikiipedia wants to prevent a person from editing. Second, just because Mishash is currently unblocked doesn't mean the account will remain unblocked. That determination hasn't yet been made. Finally, if Mishash is blocked, the block can be appealed. You have to understand that many people say that a second account belongs to someone in their household or, in this case, their office, but it's often simply not true. I'm not expressing an opinion at this point in time whether what you say is or is not true, just trying to make you understand how things work.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In my case I don't really care if my account is blocked or deleted as after dealing with editor wars, personal bashing, and other WP dirty realities, I'm certainly done with WP editing. To be honest, I don't think John cares about his WP account either, he is just another naive person (like I was 3 months ago) who thinks highly of WP but it's only a matter of time until he stumbles upon some seasoned WP editor with hidden agenda and gets involved in editor wars trying to prevent manipulation and misrepresentation of facts... I think we better focus on our patients :) Wiki-shield (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Your patients are more important than Wikipedia anyway. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 I need your help and some advice about possible sockpuppetry[edit]

Hi Bbb23,

I need your help and some advice about possible sockpuppetry. I am also going to ping User:PBS @PBS so that he may have advice as well, or if you are really busy just now.

There has been ongoing disputes, edit warring, blatant blp issues, NPA's up to like 3 now from one certain editor.in and around the article for a pianist here at en wikipedia, as well as the blp board, edit warring boards (reports by two different editors about the same James Rhodes (pianist) article, page protection board, where @CambridgeBayWeather saw all the blp issuesthat were going on at the time she judged the need for protection there at the pianist article. User:CambridgeBayWeather in her admin role semi-protected the article for one week, then there were three WP:NPA violations against him, which I warned the editor on his talk page on two occasions.

Since then the editor has struck up a whole band of possible sock monkeys to help defend him, and also some of the ones have made personal attacks againt me as well in the ani the editor filed. I have been trying to state what has actually happened over this while, but there is so much disruption, attacking, and lacking good faith by him and some others there.

I just got to thinking this is so weird. All the possible soccy editors seemed to be acting in concert in how the flow of things went there so far. I just kept my thoughts about all this to myself until now, but it occurred to me to check the block log of this editor to see if he had ever had any trouble with issues that he may have been blocked for. I asked him about the two blocks listed in the report. One block was for 72 hours and the next block was an INdeffinent. block. I noticed the offenses listed was sock puppeting and abusing multiple accounts.

When I asked him about the sockpuppetry charge in the ani, he said something to the effect that "he was testing wikipedias security" by "setting up some vandalism only accounts" to test security. You could read his exact storyline that he posted on there. Are editors allowed to "test security" by making up sockpuppets to vandalize editors, articles and such? Is he really working for you as a clerk or something?

To paraphrase, he said at ani it was just a couple of accounts, maybe 2 just to test with. I took his word on that for awhile, but then I took a break from making new articles, to just try typing his editor name and sockpuppet in wp search. This is what I found, it had your name on it so I thought you would be the perfect person to explain to me how this works exactly. [title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181/Archive&oldid=663847791]

Maybe I am not reading the pages and archives correctly since I do not follow the spi reports very often. I see people speak of a duck rule, and or diffs of evidence is needed to request an investigation. I do not know myself is all this meets the duck rule or if there is any real evidence that this user may be continuing to abuse multi accounts or not, But I was stunned to se reports on his archive go back to januaey and the latest one was around may 18. Could you read this over if you have time to see if it warrants asking for all this to be checked on. I do not know how to do a spi report. I am not sure if it can be added on to the ongoing list that goes back several months? Please look it over and let me know something. I am going to work offline on my new article sets tonight, and upload them tomorrow or the next day. I have been doing a series of articles about different writers around the world, and then I make a few stubs from red links in the one about the writer.

This is all very discouraging. [5] Thank you.

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[6]

Just a quick answer. No, I don't have the time for this. Also, diffs to the ANI and to the editor (Joseph3202) would have been helpful so I didn't have to dig. Finally, Joseph3202 is not acting as my clerk; that's pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Before either Bbb23 or PBS respond, you both might want to be aware of this [7] happening at AN/I as a side discussion regarding the situation W17 is referring to. I'm not even going to speculate as to whether W17's claim of possible sockpuppetry occurring is related to how that discussion about him at AN/I is developing. -- WV 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Just so people know, some of the above isn't true. I was blocked for 72 hours for using multiple accounts, but contrary to what they keep saying here and at WP:ANI, I was not indef blocked for sockpuppetry, but for a possible compromised account (it wasn't compromised). Nevertheless, if people want to run a CU on me to prove these accusations are ridiculous then by all means do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please note that User:WordSeventeen has now been blocked for Wikihounding/harassment, the last action of which was to file this sockpuppet investigation against me after another admin had dismissed it as rubbish. Feel free to delete/archive this thread as necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kitty Genovese[edit]

Would you please take a look at this? Richard Arthur Norton has decided that the information and reference connected to the image in the infobox is "metadata" and shouldn't be included. Per WP:BRD I Reverted his Bold edit and asked him to start a Discussion, which he did, but he also, in violation of BRD, reverted to his preferred version. He keeps restoring the article to his preferred version without a talk page consensus to do so. (BRD specifies that the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.) I would appreciate it if you could -- if you think it is appropriate -- let RAN know that the article should return to the status it was in before he changed it, that his personal opinion about whether the additional information should be there or not is not controlling, and that he should wait to have a consensus on the talk page before making the change? I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted.

If you feel you'd rather not get involved, for whatever reason, that's fine, I just want to handle this quietly and not make a big megillah out of it, BMK (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the image which was in the article was File:KittyGenovese.JPG which was hosted on Wikipedia because it was a non-free file, having come from The New York Times. RAN replaced it with File:Kitty Genovese circa 1964.jpg, the same image (albeit a better version) which he uploaded on Commons as coming from The Nation and The New York Times. His rationale was that it was uploaded without a copyright notice, but of course, those periodicals are copyrighted in total, so the image is also copyrighted. In any event, it appears that he uploaded it on Commons to avoid his restriction on uploading images on Wikipedia, which I suppose is legal, but hardly within the spirit of his restriction. BMK (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion on Commons as clearly a copyrighted image, but have re-uploaded the better version here on Wikipedia, replacing the older version (which was a scan from the newspaper) - again as a non-free image, which it is. BMK (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I don't mean to ignore you, but I'm busier than usual and have zero time to look into other more-than-simple matters at the moment unless it's urgent and can't be dealt with by someone else (unlikely).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, undersrtood, thank for for the response. BMK (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Accidental fumble finger revert on an insensitive tablet there. Sorry. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Linda Siegel[edit]

Hi Bbb23, I was in the middle of editing the Linda Siegel article, when you deleted it, so have recreated it. I hope this doesn't break any rules. I came across this after an editor called Taeyebaar suggested this as a worthwhile subject, from links through Anne Castles which article I created as part of the Women of Science Wikibomb. I see now that there is some controversy and edit-warring going on on this matter, and despite believing that Linda Siegel is a notable topic, I will leave it to your judgement waht to do with the recreated article - which by the way, I think I have edited down to be more neutral. regardsGaryvines (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Garyvines: No problem. An editor may recreate an article deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as long as they take responsibility for the article. Thanks for checking with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, you're faster than the speed of light :). I was working on fixing that article at the same time as`Garyvines. 'Twas a bit of a shock when I hit "Show preview" and found it was no more. If he hadn't re-created it, I would have. Siegel is a prominent academic in the field of learning disabilities and certainly worth an article, especially one without that bizarre coatrack created by the sock. Anyhow, it's now a proper biography, so all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

You declined my request for a CU on Orcohen45, on the grounds that he had already been identified as a sock of a different puppeteer. However, looking at the identified master account, Itaykaufman12, I see that this both post-dates, and repeats the edits of, the account I posited as the puppeteer, Morbenmoshe. Further, identified socks of Itaykaufman have names suggesting that they are also socks of Morbenmoshe. Could you possibly look at this again, and integrate the two accounts and their identified socks, preferably under the name of the earliest account. RolandR (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@RolandR: No to all. Orcohen45 is  Confirmed to Itaykaufman12, and Morbenmoshe is  Unrelated to Orcohen45. There's nothing to "integrate", and there's no reason to revisit this issue. Also, I removed the tag you placed at Morbenmoshe as there is no basis for the tag. Nor is it your job to tag userpages with sock templates. That is done by an administrator or an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to point to the following edits. On Herut: Orcohen[8][9]; Morbenmoshe[10]; apparent Morbenmoshe sock 80.246.133.64 (active at the same time, one of several blocked IPs associated with Morbennoshe)[11]. On Gahal: Orbencohen[12]; apparent Morbenmoshe sock 87.69.198.92 [13]. See also, for instance this edit by confirmed Itaykaufman sock Gffgdhfg Although the herut remain the same party from her beginning until the end she experienced ideological changes and through the years she got moderated[14] and this edit (to a different article) by Morbenmoshe Althoug begin was never extreme in his opinions he was right-wing until 1965 when he foubd gahal when he moderated his opinion and became center-right wing[15]. See also these edit summaries: by Morbenmoshe it is not true the herut was a small party until the 1960s. and only in the 1960's she became the major party. even the source doesnt say that,[16] how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia[17]; by Orbencohen im not sockpuppet im just stating facts the herut was not the major party until 1988 if the likud was already in the israeli minister in 1977.[18]
Further, this AIN report by Itaykaufman sock Shay2570[19] is remarkably similar to this post on Talk:Main page[20] by suspected Morbenmoshe sock 76.12.140.114. It's also worth noting that one of the confirmed socks of Itaykaufman is Morbendavid, a name extremely similar to Morbenmoshe.
So what we have here is either one puppeteer mistakenly identified as two, or two puppeteers with the same obsession with the alleged difference between Gahal and Herut, the same weak grasp of English, an almost identical pattern of edit summaries, similar user names, and similar attacks on editors perceived to be hostile. I would also like to ask the opinions of Number 57 and Malik Shabazz, two admins who were involved in combatting last week's spate of edit-warring and sockpuppetry on these articles, and who may be able to confirm my suspicions. RolandR (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I don't want to go to WP:AN on this since WP:AN often is more trouble than it's worth, especially since it's minor, but User:Winklevi who was brought up at the edit warring 3RR board has been harassing me after I told him three times now not to post on my talk page, at a recent AFD he nominated, he's harassed any user who voted "keep", and he really needs to learn how to accurately apply policies and guidelines since he has exhibited very little understanding of what they actually are (and hope some exist that in reality don't). Could you please warn him to (a) stay away from my talk page, (b) stop making threats lightly about blocking and violating policy and (c) actually learn the policies he's trying to demand others follow but has completely misunderstood. His behavior in these three areas is disruptive, in my opinion, and frankly I find all interaction with him to be frustrating and futile so I would prefer not having to interact. Thank you for any help you can offer. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, before you jump to conclusions based only on what JTV has written above, please look at every one of JTV's edits over the last few days and you will find that roughly 95% of them have been personal attacks toward me directly or about me in talk page comments, noticeboard comments, and edit summaries. I tried to reason with him days ago and asked him politely to stop. He continued. I tried ignoring him. He persisted. Today, at an AfD discussion, I decided I had taken enough of his abuse. I warned him (went straight to level 3 because I had warned him several times a few days ago). He persisted his personal attacks and non-AGF comments in his edit summaries. One could even say he's been hounding my edits to some degree, as he shows up where he's never edited previously, making rude comments and insults. Further, it would seem from this comment by JTV that I'm not the only editor at whom he has launched insults [21]. My plan is to file a report later today when I have time to get diffs together. -- WV 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want to file a report go ahead, just be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG since (a) you're a difficult editor to deal with (b) you don't have clean hands and (c) you're not liked by several of the editors on the pages I've run into you on who also have had difficulty with you. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have only one brief comment. Winkelvi, if JackTheVicar has asked you not to post on this Talk page, don't. As to everything else, I'll let you folk deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23: I weighed the question of whether I should put the warning template there because I need to notify editors adequately before filing a report against not doing it because he demanded (rudely in edit summaries) that I not post there. I decided to err on the side of caution lest I be told any report I would file at a noticeboard was premature or out of line because I had not adequately warned him. It is my understanding that even when an editor has asked another editor to stay off their talk page, it is acceptable practice to place warning templates when necessary. -- WV 22:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WV, standard practice is to ask a neutral party to do it for you. I appeared hear to ask Bbb23 to intervene because of his familiarity with your AN 3RR issue, and I value Bbb23's fairness and approach (although we've never interacted, I've observed Bbb23's input on other matters). If you want to bring a report, go right ahead, I've already talked to 10 other users who are ready to discuss your disruptive and unproductive behavior, most you've crossed during the last few days. There are a lot of people who like me. Again, I advise you to heed WP:BOOMERANG. Post on my talk page again--anything, from a warning to a barnstar, and I will take it as harassment. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Knock knock[edit]

Funny Incredibly lame inside joke: you can judge how long you've been on wikibreak by the version of Chrome popping up in your CU checks. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It's good to know we have any insider jokes, even lame ones. What I want to know is what you're doing on-wiki? Does this mean I can pester you again (your busy message is gone, too)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this Sisyphus has managed to roll the giant rock to the top of the hill and it's holding steady there...for now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)