User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

  • 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.


Hello. This is Jiten Mehrotra. Just saw you deleted a page made on Kunal Bhardwaj by somebody with A7 (No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event) as the reason. I believe there was a proper explanation that its about a real person along with his DOB and achievements as well as proper links. Can you please elaborate on the explanation for deletion? Thank you115.115.222.123 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Jitin

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]


Hello. This is Jayson37373737. you deleted my page for no reason. That was my loveliest work! For this, I am going to try to delete my account and start a new website. Thank you. Jayson3737373737 11:08, 17 August 2014 (GMC)

IP sock back at his old habits again[edit]

As you asked me to inform you if there were further incidents and I've just seen some, I'll share what I know on the User:lgfcd's recent sock-edits. He's back under several IPs ( and; all three of them were chattering together at Talk:Arrow_(Israeli_missile) and converged to change the citation style of Embraer E-Jet E2 family recently, see [1]) and is making the same WP:CITEVAR violations as ever (see the Embraer example, or this Boeing one [2] and reversion by another editor), he just hasn't learnt anything and is continuing the same havoc as ever. Should we speak with him and try to get him to stop the citevar violations, or is banning him again all that can be done to stem the disruption? Kyteto (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, Kyteto, that I didn't get to this today. It's been busy for me on Wikipedia and in my real life (it is Sunday, after all). And I won't be able to look at the situation today as it's late and I don't have the energy. I'll try to get to it later, but in the interim feel free to reopen the SPI if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That's okay, I am not in a particular rush to get the issue closed - there's no need for an immediate response, it's not a high priority. I'm happy enough that it's just going to be looked at in the future. Kyteto (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Kyteto, if I'd known it was going to be this easy, I would have done this earlier. :-) Two of the IPs had already been blocked twice for block evasion, and the third came from the same place. I blocked all three for six months. There's no point in talking to the master, and I'm not sure what you mean by "banning him again". Feel free to come back if there's more problems, even if it takes me a bit to get geared up. It might speed things up if you mentioned if any of the IPs have been blocked before OR if any of them come from the same range (Chamber of Deputies in Brazil). Thanks very much for your interest in protecting the project and for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action. I actually just found another one of his socks: It's quacking fairly loudly (shooting through some of the same articles as the other IPs, similar style edits and descriptions, same location ect). Kyteto (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yet another sock IP has appeared, - it's almost certainly the same person. ~Edit~ Just spotted two more - he's all over the place: and Kyteto (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas, reliable sources[edit]

Excuse me! My sources for Thomas' obsession with porno flicks are the NY Daily News, and CNN itself. How in the world can anyone say these are not reliable sources??? If CNN is not a reliable source, then no source is reliable. Goblinshark17 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The NY Daily News certainly isn't a reliable source for such a claim about a living person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
How about CNN? Reliable enough for you? Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Deeply controversial claims about living persons normally require multiple reliable sources, for one thing. Also, it really rather depends on what they said and how our article summarises that in conjunction with the other reliable sources that must also be used to reference what this person is notable for.
So if CNN said "Demiurge1000 is a British lawyer best known for an obsession with pornographic movies", then a Wikipedia article about Demiurge1000 might mention such a thing in such strong terms (though not the informal ones you use here).
If, on the other hand, and for example, CNN merely reported that someone had hidden a sizeable stash of pornographic material behind some garbage cans where it was subsequently found by the police (as happened to some notable UK news or media or somesuch figure fairly recently), then that would certainly not be sufficient to use the word "obsession" or anything similar, or even perhaps to mention the incident in the Wikipedia article about that person at all. (An exercise for the reader is to check whether the current Wikipedia article does mention it...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Ain't Worth The Whiskey check this article for patrolling. What type of tag we should apply to this kind of article.--Owais khursheed (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to speedy tags, it's not subject to speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Christine Shevchenko‎[edit]

Question: I requested a speedy deletion for this page as it is a redirect page so I could create an article for it and will count towards article creation but a user keeps removing it saying it's not a legit reason for a speedy delete. I've done this before but he keeps reverting me saying no. Am I in the wrong on this or is that a legit reason? LADY LOTUSTALK 11:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of using the tag for that reason, but that doesn't mean it's not done. It's not one of the examples given for G6, but I assume the examples aren't intended to be exhaustive. Why don't you raise the question on WT:CSD?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey Bbb23, the IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is abetting the blocked IP user, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in edit warring. This may be block evasion, and it appears to be so. Could you please look over to see if the IP is a sockpuppet? Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And since they seem to be edit warring, I left a message to them. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I semi-protected the article for a month. I backed out the section added by the blocked IP. I blocked the latest IP (three so far), and, on an unrelated issue, I added a COI tag to the article because of a user (who is autoconfirmed so will not be prevented from editing the article) with an obvious conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I think there's another IP in the fray now, (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They are trolling on the article talk page and accusing Chambermagic of ownership. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There are so many. They're all coming from the same place and service, but they occupy different ranges, so although I'm not an expert on range blocks, I don't see how it would work. If necessary, I'll semi-protect the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
And you were threatening to block me for edit warring! I was in the right! Luxure (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you had been reverting an IP evading a block, you would have been fine, but that wasn't the case at the time. It's all your fault, anyway. You reacted very nicely to my comments (I wish everyone were that pleasant to deal with), but look at all the work you've created for me since. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance. I hope it wasn't too much work, but seeing as you wield the mop... Face-smile.svg Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Bbb23, Could you cast your eye over the talk page of the Paris article please? (From an entirely neutral point of view, obviously). There is a lot of suspicious editing activity going on, with some POV pushers whose editing only seems to become active when the question of the page's main image is raised. Historically there has been meat puppeting going on, traced back to a forum on a skyscraper website (which is part of there discussion on the page). I am becoming increasingly bored (but hugely irritated) by a series of these suspicious editors who are very quick to throw some very unfounded ownership accusations out (on an article I have only edited 13 times, and where I am trying to discuss possible changes to the images). I have very strong suspicions that meat puppeting (or socking) is going on, although there is no evidence of this (having been pulled up on this before, I suspect they have changed their modus operandi to avoid detection this time round). The article is locked (following a request from me to do so, given the edit warring), and I have filed at 3RR against one of the editors who has reverted five times in 40(ish) hours, despite numerous requests for a consensus to develop on the talk page before any changes take place. There are five live threads on this topic on the talk page at the moment:

5 Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense
6 A cat then?
7 Please leave out Tour Montparnasse from montage
8 When a discussion is not going 'your way', just deny that it exists!
9 Eiffel Tower image

If you are able to have a look, and perhaps to curtail some of the current excesses (of which I am know I am also guilty), it can only be for the best. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your earlier comments on the page. I thought that may curb some of the excesses, but it appears that some are still intent on unfounded attacks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
and again! These constant lies and attacks are intolerable, and the problem is that if I react to them in a blast of solid Anglo-Saxon, I'm the one who will face censure, and not the editor who is causing this particular issue. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
oh, good grief! - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved suggestion : Have each participant put together a single image or montage that they think best represents Paris. Accompany this with a SHORT reasoning behind the selection of the images (and not commenting about why other's images are inappropriate). Make an RFC for people to choose between them, or provide comments on them. Neutrally advertise the RFC in the relevant noticeboards and wikiprojects, and let outside opinions carry the day. While historical participants of this debate are of course allowed to provide a !vote and reasoning, they should not dominate the discussion and try to convince every participant of their view, as that will actually discourage wider input. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given this lot of edits when trying to move things in a more constructive direction, I'm out of the monumental clusterfuck of a talk page. It seems that too many overly-entrenched opinions are not going to get to any form of agreement over this. I'm monumentally pissed off with meat puppets, (and yes, I stand by that accusation, given all that happened last time, and the duck-like behaviour this time), incivility, stupid insults and lack of objectivity. I'm out, and without major admin oversight this utter abomination will continue to fester and flare up continually. Good luck looking at it, although I have been disappointed with the admin oversight on the page so far, despite requests for help at 3RR (reported 23 hours ago and no-one has grasped the nettle to do anything), and the edit warring after your warning (you may have left a warning on Metropolitan's page, but the inflammatory, uncivil and untruthful heading he warred to put back in there is still present – you may no think it was an issue, but it is pissing people off monumentally, and does not help calm discussion on the talk page.
I see the whole fucking mess is now at ANI (in two separate threads). If I can bring myself to comment about the, quite frankly, idiotic behaviour on the page, I may do, but this should have been dealt with by numerous admins some time ago. I appreciate that this is not your fault and that I am venting spleen in the wrong direction, but considering I went through so many different admin channels to get some eyes on the stupidity (all of my attempts referring to each other, to avoid accusations of forum shopping), that I am hugely, monumentally and utterly pissed off that it has ended up in such a fucking mess. I am moving inevitably towards the conclusion that for all its benefits, Wikipedia is too dysfunctional to operate properly. Or that there are too few decent admins able to stand up and take action. Or that it's too easy to use meat puppets, organise through emails an attack on a talk page, and game the system. Or all of the above. I have no doubt that you or someone else will be tempted to block or ban me based on what I honestly believe has happened here (based on the known, proven history of those involved and WP:DUCK), but I realise that I no longer give a flying fuck what the administrative process of such a broken system may bring about. I'll drop a link to this onto the ANI threads, as I says all I want to say on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion edits again[edit]

Bbb, I guess I'm asking a second time, did you personally disagree with my edit, putting redirect-to-article in the speedy deletion non-criteria? There are zero pages on Wikipedia that require consensus for every edit, so since you reverted, that means you object, and I'd like to know your objection. Being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#List this on non-criteria Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I've just discovered this posted by User:ThePromenader in the administrators' noticeboard: [3]. I'm at a loss for words really. Personal attacks, insinuations, unsubstantiated claims. Not a single shred of evidence that I can discuss. You told the editors in the Paris talk page that: "If you don't have enough evidence, then stop making the accusations in the first instance because, in that context, they constitute personal attacks." And now this, coming from someone who must have read your message, since he's an active member of the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably see it in any case, but as I mentioned you by name I leave the notice just in case.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Some userpage editing occurred on Forgave's talk page; I've updated the SPI with it. Nate (chatter) 21:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Title section revert[edit]

Hi, I was at the office earlier and I hadn't noticed your warning before restoring the title of the section. I'm sorry for that. Of course I won't do such a revert again.

Just to clarify, I've opened a new section to indeed alert some contributors that they were behaving in a way in line with the examples of ownership behaviour as described here. In return the title of the section has been twisted to something unrelated and one of my message has been erased. It is the first time I see people editing other's signed contributions in a talk page. This just looks crazy to me. Metropolitan (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan, thanks for the explanation. It doesn't suprise me, which is why I issued a warning directly on your talk page rather than blocking. As for the refactoring, there are a lot of edits to that page. I'd need diffs showing the refactoring. Bear in mind: sometimes it's unintentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is the diff where my message had been erased: [4] - Metropolitan (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I can tell you what happened. Your edit changed the section title and added a comment about ANI. Your edit summary mentioned only the section title. Coldcreation did a simple revert of your entire edit without probably realizing that they were not only reverting the title but also your addition. Another not quite so benevolent explanation is that they didn't care because they were annoyed with the title change and weren't going to bother to do a partial revert. I've done that myself, although I usually reserve it for more straightforward disruption, which your edit was not. I don't know which explanation is correct or if there's another one, but that's my analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I did a simple revert of the entire edit without realizing that there was any other text.Coldcreation (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat[edit]

Hello again. I've just written this bellow on the Paris talk page where we were asked to say whether we supported or opposed the photomontage by Dr Blofeld. I have never contacted any admin or opened any file at WP:ANI about this issue, because I am frankly not that sort of person, but since I've been publicly accused, framed for banishment, with two files opened about me at ANI in the last week by the same editors, I would like to notify an admin about the issue below. Could you let me know what you think about it? I have tried to give a summary as succinct and faithful as possible, with diffs. Thank you. (PS: If you need more information, just let me know) Der Statistiker (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There were various discussion on the talk page and arbitrations which User:Metropolitan has summarized above, and they all concluded that there was no consensus for a photomontage replacing the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense. User:Dr. Blofeld started editing the Paris article on 23 June 2013 because it had been nominated for GA (Good Article) status, and on 2 July 2013 this editor put a photomontage in the infobox without paying attention to the previous talk page discussion and arbitrations or opening a discussion on the talk page: [5]. 5 days later, I reverted Dr. Blofeld's montage and politely pointed out that there was no consensus for a montage, and that it had already been discussed on the talk page (in case Dr Blofeld didn't know): [6]. Only 3 and half hours later, I was reverted by User:SchroCat without any explanation: [7]. Please note that after going back in the edit history of the article until 2011, I cannot find a single edit by SchroCat in the Paris article until that 7 July 2013 edit which consisted in reverting me and replacing Dr Blofeld's montage in the infobox. SchroCat came to the article apparently with the sole intention of "protecting" the montage of Dr. Blofeld. And all that has happened since then is the consequence of this original problem: forcing a montage in the infobox with disregard for all previous talk page discussions and arbitrations, and then reverting anyone who attempts to remove Dr Blofeld's montage from the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talk page of both users to inform them that I am bringing this issue to you. Hope you don't mind, but otherwise they might accuse me of acting in their back. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, my only interest in any of this relates to misconduct, not to content. You're asking me to help you frame a "vote" about content and consensus. I'm unwilling to do that, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think there was a misunderstanding here. I of course did not ask you to help me "frame" a vote. The reason why there is "oppose" written in my message above is because I simply copied and pasted the message I wrote in the talk page. My point was not about the vote, but about what I perceive as the misconduct of Dr Blofeld and his friend SchroCat (in particular, coming in an article SchroCat had never edited before to revert the article in order to protect the photomontage of his friend Dr Blofeld; I've given you the diffs). Please also note that a few hours ago an admin openly said at ANI that these two editors (Dr Blofled and SchroCat) had contacted him off-wiki ([8]), yet these same editors have accused other editors repeatedly of canvassing. I would like to know whether any of this is in breach of the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia, and if so, what should be done. Thanks. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As I put on the talk page, "More bad faith as to the legitimate reason I came here. If you have suspicions over bad faith on my part, provide a diff. If not strike out the lies and innuendo." - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really care Bbb, but if you delve back into the history of the Paris article and talk page, especially July-August 2013 you'll see why a topic ban for this troublemaker is definitely needed. I originally improved it from a shoddy poorly sourced article to GA status and all I got was grief for weeks from this editor and others he canvassed who had not been active since 2006. He's nothing but a malicious troll with extreme OWN issues. He's edited this year and not once brought up the montage image. It's been accepted for over a year. Something off wiki has triggered this sudden meat puppetry escapade trying to replace my montage which is disruptive. He did this sort of thing last year when editors canvassed off wiki turns up suspiciously to try to force a change to the article and revert all of the good work back. If Bbb isn't willing to act I'm sure another admin at some point will. The history of the talk page and your disruption speaks for itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"my only interest in any of this relates to misconduct,". That's hardly true is it? There's multiple violations of WP:MEATPUPPET going on at Talk:Paris to stack votes and not one admin will step up to the plate and deal with it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do find the lack of admin oversight on this matter to be of very grave concern, thus my long thread in a section or two above. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Der Statistiker reported by User:SchroCat (Result: ) was opened at 21:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) and remains undealt with three days later, which is just poor. Because this has not been dealt with properly, more infringements are taking place. I know Wiki is a big place and admin numbers are limited, but the lack of effort by the admin cadre on this matter really is shocking here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^