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 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)


Hi Bbb23, User:Sarabveer is back and is again reverting to his full of problems version at Akhand Kirtani Jatha without engaging in any discussions. Can you block him again and lock the article?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally block him for the one edit adding an image to the article. However, I believe that the IP's edit restoring the problematic version is clearly the same person. Therefore, I blocked them both for two weeks for socking. Just to document this for the future, see here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for acting. I had meant the IP editor only. In fact, he had not logged in and added the image at the time I contacted you. I didn't get, why you linked to this steam community website? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits[edit]

Hi. A user is making very strange changes in Cyprus-related articles like Northern Cyprus, Turkish invasion of Cyprus and others. (For example in the section titled Ottoman Era they delete everything sourced and there for a long time and replace it with unsourced speculations which are not even related to the time span! Ah and they claim WP is a huge lie and Turkish propaganda. And does this several times in a short period...) I think we need an admin who could explain them how Wikipedia functions either in Greek or in simple English because the user neither listens to me and other ordinary users nor -apparently- understands what we are trying to transmit. Please don't tell me to use the discussion page; there are people with whom one can discuss and others with whom that is simply impossible. Please do not refrain from intervening. Thank you very much and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? has been engaged in a long-running edit war on Turkish invasion of Cyprus and now seems to have moved onto Northern Cyprus - in both articles he has refused to interact with any editors on the talk pages. Some of the edits he makes includes adding off-topic material like the history of EOKA, and a lot of the edit warring is over seeming trivialities like whether 40% of Cyprus is under Turkish occupation or whether it is actually 37%. Not one of Why should I have a User Name?'s edits have been accompanied by talk page justifications. If you want to intervene, first give him a stern talking-to about the proper use of talk pages and edit summaries. The other editor, GiorgosY, is at least making some attempts at talk page engagement and refrains from filling his edit summaries with personal insults designed to further inflame the edit war. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked User:GiorgosY for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Almost all of his edits are severely problematic. Engaging on a talk page while disruptively editing the article doesn't save you from sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My edits were well sourced (e.g library of the USA congress,) and had no lie on what so ever. They were also well explained. Every edit had an explanation of the why. They were made in articles which was a clear effort on hiding the truth and portraying things against my country Cyprus in a non-realistic way, something that I also had explained with well respected sources. On the contrary the users Why should I have a User Name and AlexFlemming were making a war against me, the user Why should I have a User Name tried to threaten me not to do any edits, like people have no right to add well sourced material, then he deleted all my edits and keep deleting them, and then he also reported me for this. I am wondering if you have checked the history of it, I am wondering if you have checked what those articles were saying and their relation with well respected sources and I am also wondering, if the article of Northern Cyprus, which I have let untouched for the time being, is an article that has anything to do with the truth, in relation with what respectable sources are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 21:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

wikipedia on mobile[edit]

May I have my edits reinstated on Manor of Rivington they took hours due to trying to edit on an Android device. The mobile site is very difficult to edit via and has a habit of rejecting my password or logging me out. My edits were not disruptive and causing no problems. Thanks --Pennine rambler (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to the message on my talk page. I have edited articles on Wikipedia for over 7 years. I agreed not to edit for a week as you stated on an article. It has been considerably longer than a week. Today I added information recently published. This was added overnight. Is the requirement that I never edit the article again? The other editor has said he was ceasing to edit I have not edited to start an edit war. I added citations and improved the wording. I do not understand the problem here. I do not understand why you wiped away every edit I have done on the article. Would you explain why that action has been taken there were no issues with edits as far as I am aware. If I had been made aware of any issues I would not has wasted hours. Please have the courtesy to reply. I am ceasing editing whilst this is resolved.--Pennine rambler (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I have made a number of requests for an explanation. I have had no response.--Pennine rambler (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Pennine rambler: Admins have real lives too. It may take a couple of days for a response. As this is a volunteer project, and one with no time limit, you're not owed a response immediately. You'll need patience if you intend to edit Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pennine rambler, it would have been easier for me if you had left my warning on your talk page and responded there, particularly as it had the link to AN3 report. In any event, you are correct about the one week. Somehow, because the other editor was taking it off their watchlist, I assumed you were doing the same, but your only promise was the one week. Therefore, I have restored your edits, and I apologize for the warning and the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I did indeed remove the article from my watchlist but I do look at the WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria watchlist from time to time. Pennine Rambler doesn't have carte blanche to remove referenced information from the article. He needed to explain some things before reinstating his pov. Can he explain why he wants to remove "John Andrews sold his interests in the manor and estate to William Lever" which has two reliable references and is willing to edit war, not just with me, about it? What justifies removing the two reliable references (the book by William Fergusson Irvine (1904). A short history of the township of Rivington and the Victoria County History website for Farrer, William; Brownbill, J., eds. (1911). "Rivington". A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (British History Online)) used throughout the article for "Lancashire & North West Magazine, August 2014"? What makes the magazine a more reliable source? J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I didn't think you would like Pennine's edits. However, you're going to have to work out the content issues without edit warring. I'm not going to mediate that dispute. If there's a conduct issue, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Sanctions[edit]

Would the admin please take note of this Wikipedia policy and respond. Wikipedia:Disruptive_sanctions I feel the actions of the admin are discussed within the linked document and the admin here is conducting their admin role not in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia. I have observed others have also raised concerns.

--Pennine rambler (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive_sanctions is an essay, not a policy the panda ₯’ 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Need some help/suggestions[edit]

Hi Bbb23, I come here to seek your suggestions about dealing with User:Jujhar.pannu. This user is problematic in many ways. Main problems are slow edit warring, NPOV editing, pasting same text verbatim in 2 articles, refusing to listen. They often display lack of basic English comprehension. As they do not edit on a regular basis, any attempt to discuss content are often not productive. Could you suggest me the right course of action. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Without specific articles or edits you're concerned with, the only advice I have is general. What you're talking about is user conduct, but to stop someone who is being disruptive but not in a bright-line policy way (like a breach of 3RR) is not easy. I would focus on the articles where you think he demonstrates misbehavior in the most glaring way. Take the problems to the talk page (reverting once or twice should be okay if you wish to try that first) and try to obtain a consensus. If you can establish a consensus and he defies that consensus, then you would take whatever evidence you have to AN or ANI. Just be sure you have enough for taking that step. Unfortunately, it requires a certain amount of work on your part, and nothing obligates you to do it, but if you don't wish to, don't let yourself get too hot under the collar or angry about it because that could lead to problems for you, and it's simply not worth it. Also, depending on the problem, you can take it to one of the non-administrative notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

River Stumpf's new accounts[edit]

I just found out his new accounts Myheartisopen, Myheartisopen2, and Myheartisopen3

Myheartisopen is clearly contains "River Stumpf", it must be him. (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I blocked #1 and #2. #3 is not a real user; he just created a phony user page, which I deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert and edit summary[edit]

where does *this* come from?[3]

Thanks for reverting me with an edit summary that makes no sense. "Where does this come from?" How am I supposed to respond to that? Are you implying with your revert and edit summary that the edit warring policy does not apply to admins? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was more than you deserved. You made a significant change to a core policy. Your edit summaries were perfunctory ("add" "ce"). You did not raise your proposed change anywhere that I know of (that's the "where does this come from"). What you did shows very poor judgment. Your change will not occur without either an extended RfC on the policy talk page (just a discussion isn't good enough), or a proposal at WP:VPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your assessment and with your bureaucratic approach. I did not make a "significant" change to any core policy. Admins should not be edit warring nor acting as involved on the 3RR board. Stating that fact is hardly a significant change. That you actually argue that an extended RfC is needed to make a fact explicit shows who has the poor judgment here. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Do not worry too much about an extended RFC, I don't think the modification will gain even a basic level of consensus. It is redundant and undue. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Perhaps you can have a look at User:Zipititzip. He seslf admits and clearly is a sock of User:Ashutosh4422, but he makes a claim that WP (some admin?) has agreed to this restart. Since you have delat with this user before, you may know more about the background and be a better judge of what to do. I deleted his recreation of Nitesh Tiwari, but restored an older version which was IMO incorrectly speedied. Feel free to correct or revert any of my actions in this. Fram (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fram, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked the user and spent a fairly long time cleaning up after him. What was wrong with the speedy delete on the Nitesh Tiwari article? I believe it was FreeRangeFrog who deleted it based on an A7. My deletions came later. I see nothing in it now (it's a bit better formatted) that says much. I also wonder about the editor who recreated it. They have a much longer history here, but they also have a lot of deleted articles. Why recreate that particular article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. About the article: someone who has directed at least two blue-linked films and has an article / interview in Yahoo Celebrity should IMO not be speedy deleted for lack of claim to importance. AfD may be necessary of course, but speedy should not be used in such cases. (Speedy G5 is something different, I have no problem with those). It seems as if an AfD would have no chance either though, he clearly has some notability[4]. Note that the first movie, which he co-directed, won a National Film Awards (India). As for the original creator, he also created e.g. Deven Khote and Haidar Ali (actor), so it's not as if he wasn't interested in Bollywood before this creation. I don't think there is a connection to the later socks (but I haven't studied it in depth of course). Fram (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Puts my mind (mostly Face-smile.svg) at rest. Perhaps I'm occasionally too jaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Azhar Sabri[edit]

Since you were the last person to delete "Azhar Sabri (poet)", I think I should let you know that another article has been created about the same person, this time as Azhar Sabri. with a period on the end of the name. I have nominated it for deletion. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted by another admin. However, I have left a warning on the creator's talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Block expired - disruption resumed[edit]

Hello Bbb23,

I am sorry to bother you again with this old story: the block of banned User:Danrolo's IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has expired and he has resumed his disruptive editing once again, including unverifiable changes and additions, fake references (citing sources that in fact do not support the claims) and even edit-warring at Union for a Popular Movement. I am afraid that the block needs to be renewed. Thanks in advance, --RJFF (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I blocked him for one year. I'll leave any clean-up to you. I just spent a long time cleaning up after a named account sock. It's very tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring[edit]

Hey there! Just stalking the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. It looks like this revert was marked minor. I don't think it matters a whit, but someone is bound to jump on it. Just an FYI... Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tgeairn, but, unfortunately, by the time I saw your post, it was already happily jumped on. If you want to see my explanation, you can read my response to the jump. It's not particularly interesting, but I'm sure it will be interpreted as incompetence (to some extent it already was in the jump). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there are times when I'd just accept faith - good faith can sometimes be too much to expect. Back to it... Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sibtain 007 SPI[edit]

Hi. In your opinion, does the Sibtain 007 SPI need to be kept open any longer? Or can it safely be closed now? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just closed it. Explaynation at Callanecc's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello you reverted my edits and reported me to another editor. Is this assuming good faith? Inevitably me pointing out the way you treated me will make me a bigger target for you to attack. Thewhitebox (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, can you please help me with the coding? I am trying to make Template:User_alternative_account more like the sockpuppet templates - for example - centered. Thewhitebox (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin access to deleted page histories[edit]

EdJohnston suggested I ping you for advice since you do a lot of SPI clerking.

For the last few weeks I've been working on a cleanup effort of spammy and spam-like content that may have been generated by a large network of paid socks or meats. I've only just begun. So far I've focused on the content, and I was planning on dealing with the conduct issues at the end. However, I've run into a bit of a conundrum relating to article deletion. I've nominated some of the most problematic articles for CSD (a mix of G11 and G12), and I've had 5-10 accepted so far. (I don't have access to a list as I only learned about CSD logging just now.) A few other articles I've tagged (advert, notability, etc.) have been subsequently nominated for AFD by DGG. By the end of the cleanup project I wouldn't be surprised to see 50 articles deleted one way or another.

The trouble is, as these pages are deleted, I lose the ability to gather some of the best evidence of socking. RHaworth has suggested nominating me for RFA but I doubt I have the requisite experience for that. DGG has suggested putting off all deletions until the SPI process is complete. That could certainly be done if necessary but I believe it wouldn't be beneficial to the cleanup effort or the project as a whole. There is also no way for us to stop other editors from nominating pages for deletion. I even made a VPP proposal to allow admins to grant non-admins view-deleted rights but that clearly isn't going anywhere.

Ultimately the question is, do you have any bright ideas for how to get around this problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gather the evidence first - link to a diff, an article, whatever. When you then create the SPI after the article is deleted, the admin can still click the now redlink, or link to a no-longer-existent article and be shown the option to view it the panda ₯’ 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks DP. I'm thinking about this approach but it would seriously delay the cleanup process. We're talking about at least 500 articles, each one created by a separate SPA. I suspect this is the work of a Wiki-PR-type organization with a whole team of individuals. Sorting out who's socking with whom could take ages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DrFleischman, this strikes me as an unusual task for an editor to embark on. What prompted your interest in it?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. This unusual contribution history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to go through all that user's edits. What in particular do you infer from the contributions (with a few diffs please)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The user was an extremely precocious SPA (first edit), editing articles about a handful of affiliated organizations, in what I felt was a promotional way. We got into several content disputes. After a few days of this the user took an abrupt pivot (first edit after pivot here) and started a weird curation project, claiming to have engaged in a "massive re-categorization project" totally unrelated to their prior work. They have done this curation for hundreds and hundred articles now. This would seem to be totally innocuous, but if you look at these articles you'll see they're overwhelmingly promotional in tone, many of them (not all) reading like press releases. There are some eerie similarities in writing style. Look at their histories and you'll see the majority of them were created by separate SPAs fully-formed in those SPAs' very first edits, just like this user's first edit. As I started cleaning up these pages the user first accused me of hounding (my response here), and then started harassing me. (If you want to know more about the harassment I ask that you e-mail me.) I've continued to work on clean-up efforts, undeterred. DGG started piggybacking off me yesterday and first raised the question that I now present to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I took the one example you gave me (the creation of the talk page for Eagle’s Wings Foundation and followed it through. That article was created by User:Morphseo whose only contributions to Wikipedia were the creation of that article and a related article, The Villa Group Resorts. Schmatica created talk pages for both articles (different kinds, though) and edited both articles. Morphseo has not edited or created any deleted pages. Schematica, OTOH, has edited many, mostly adding or refining the non-profit cats he apparently created and sometimes adding talk pages to the articles. He's also made some gnomish edits. I don't think he's actually created any that have been deleted. I can sort of see where you're going with this, but it's a massive effort even if you were able to look at deleted pages. The trying to tie all the connections together to demonstrate something sanctionable would take you a lot of time. Is there anything you can think of that would be less ambitious, at least as a first effort? You might have enough evidence to tie Schematica and Morphseo together just on what you can see, but I won't predict how a CU or an SPI clerk (even me) would react if you created an investigation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks, I always appreciate your deep dives and careful analyses. Two reactions:

  • "I can sort of see where you're going with this, but it's a massive effort even if you were able to look at deleted pages. The trying to tie all the connections together to demonstrate something sanctionable would take you a lot of time." Yes, this is a huge project and I don't know if this is something I can do all by myself. My hope is that others will come along to help out. (Perhaps an admin can do the SPI work while I focus on the content cleanup.)
  • "You might have enough evidence to tie Schematica and Morphseo together just on what you can see, but I won't predict how a CU or an SPI clerk (even me) would react if you created an investigation." I'm not seeking any SPI or sanctions against Schematica, at least at the moment, and I'm not suggesting that Morphseo and Schematica are necessarily socks, or that all of these pages were created by the same individual. What I am suggesting is that these pages may have been created by a coordinated group of individuals, each of whom used socks to hide their tracks. At the end of the day, there might be enough evidence to sanction Schematica or there might not, it's too early to tell.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, let's go back then to what you were asking for. How about if we start slowly? Your only handicap is the inability to look at deleted pages. I can, for example, userfy a deleted page as long as it's not prohibited by policy, e.g., copyright issues. First, though, you have to identify a user so I can see what's there. It might be a bit tedious, but we can continue this dialog in that fashion. I'm not promising how long I'll continue to do this. It sort of depends on the results you get. I confess it is intriguing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break (for readability)[edit]

DrFleishchman, you have officially jumped the shark. First of all, I am harassing you? What are you talking about? And it's absolutely absurd that you've interpreted my minor category edits as some sort of massive sock puppet ring. You are hounding me. I've made minor category edits on a lot of really crappy pages. And now you think it's my fault the pages are crappy? I didn't create them, or add anything of substance. Drop the witch hunt. Schematica (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Linda Tally Smith[edit]

What happened? I mistyped. Linda Tally Smith is a public official. She's a major prosecutor, a public official, which means the public should know about her. I do not know her, nor care. Just was going to post a bunch of stubs about other public officials in Kentucky. So I guess public officials are off limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talkcontribs) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't received any feedback. That was very quick deletion. Just doesn't seem right to me. Accuracy is important, but the mistake was one the talk page, and the only reason you know that her husband is a Judge is because you read the page. She's a prosecutor, which was typed up accurately, and I even put other categories of pages that related to it. Commonwealth's Attorney is an elected position. I do not understand this. This makes no sense at all. There's many public officials in Kentucky with no wikipedia pages. Is that the point? To keep public officials secret? I thought wikipedia is about informing folks? Weird. I feel like this was sexist. Is it because she's a girl? Or because I am? I need a better explanation than the one you gave. You need to say that public officials are off limits, or restore this page. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This user has done this before it seems with other users. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talkcontribs) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand that I agree with your desire to see this article deleted. I've removed the speedy basically for IAR, since the creator's clearly confused and ought to be given a fuller chance to see our processes and to understand what we need for an article. I'd be willing to start its AFD, or to let you do it (whichever you prefer), although either way I hope that the deletion rationale can be explained in a newbie-friendly manner. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you should start the AfD, Nyttend, because you'll be friendlier than I would be at this point. I'm struggling to accept good faith. To bolster the notability of the first article, she's now created two more articles, one about the person who was convicted and the other about the victim - this is all included in the Smith article, which now makes those links blue instead of red. She also removed the speedy delete tag once from the Smith article after I tagged it. Just so you know, I've just tagged the victim article. I'm holding off tagging the victim article because it actually is probably sufficiently notable to withstand an A7. Thanks for coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tally Smith completed. NeilN created a substantially less explanatory nomination for Walter Sartory while I was writing up Smith's. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be hard for anyone to write a nomination that is more explanatory, Nyttend.Face-smile.svg Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sartory's death might warrant an article with sources like this. All the others could be redirected to that. --NeilN talk to me 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe there was a similar, if not identical, article in the Seattle Times. That's the main reason I didn't tag it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Aquiline nose[edit]

It's pretty clear the IP and Wazzabee7 are the same editor. 3RRNB, SPI, or just leave it alone? --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already created a report at AN3 and pointed out the obvious there. I dunno about an SPI. I would file one only if the IPs continue to edit overlapping with Wazzabee7. If they stop, I don't much see the point, but another clerk might have a different take.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 02:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

FARZI to Farzi[edit]

Hi Bbb23, Can you move this FARZI page to Farzi per correct caps? currently correct title is protected. Chander 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is back[edit]

Hello, the case you dealt with earlier (over here: has been reopened, as the shill has come back with different IP's and older ones, mentioned here [5]. I kindly request you to return, if you can, and help finish the matter for now. Greetings, JamesRussels (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

JamesRussels, I apologize for not responding earlier, but things have been a bit hectic for me on- and off-wiki. However, Callanecc ably disposed of your report, so you were in very good hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


It's probably not going to be an issue, because it's extremely unlikely that an admin would close an RfC in a way that wasn't compliant with policy, but, hypothetically speaking, no Wikipedia editor should be forced to take any action which violates policy. At least, that's my view. BMK (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the points you make, but, again, speaking hypothetically, let's say an admin tells you to do x. You say that x violates some policy. The admin says that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect. We then have an impasse. I don't want you to have the ability to refuse based on that. I hope that makes some sense, hypothetically speaking. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It does. It's similar to my real-life rule of thumb that it's best to do what the nice policeman tells you to do, whether or not you agree with it or think he or she has the proper authority, and then let a lawyer deal with it later, if it's that serious. (Not that I've ever had to actually use that rule.) BMK (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, unlike most people, when I get stopped by a cop, I barely say anything. For example, a favorite cop question: do you know why I stopped you? It's stupid for people to say "because I was speeding"? Particularly if they're going to contest the ticket. I just hand over my registration, proof of insurance, and answer ordinary questions if they ask, e.g., do you have the time? --Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

National Integrated College[edit]

Hi. I tagged National Integrated College with CSD A7, but you said it's not allowed and I see that exception now in the rule (though the ref to the huge discussion without summary doesn't do much to explain why). WP:NSCHOOL says it must satisfy "this section" or WP:GNG. Since WP:NSCHOOL is numbered 4.1.1, I take "this section" to mean section 4.1 (WP:NGO) (since there is nothing beyond WP:NSCHOOL in 4.1.1). The school at issue satisfies neither WP:NGO nor WP:GNG. It's an unref'd orphan and I can't find anything other than the usual non-RS stuff with a search. It's unlikely to ever be more than a means of promoting this private business and attractor of non-encyclopedic edits from its teenage students. What do I do with it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1, prod it and/or take it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD reverts[edit]

Bbb, do you personally object to my addition to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion P1? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got a better question. Who were you before you created this account?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nutshell summary[edit]

Regarding this comment: the seeming conflict in the enumerated points, which come from the nutshell summary of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, is that point 3 is directed at all editors, so it asks them to contact an admin to have the user blocked, whereas point 4 is directed at administrators, who are then able to exercise their judgment. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, but take a look at the body of the essay under "Administrator action". Even though the word "should" is used, it seems to severely limit the discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I was only speaking about the conflict you had originally mentioned between points 3 and 4 (you had not written the second comment yet at the time I composed the previous post). I agree that the default expectation is a block for threats towards others (this point came up recently on I believe WP:ANI, where the difference between threats towards others and threats towards oneself was highlighted). isaacl (talk) 17:06, 21 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)