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.

Deletion

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)

WP:ANEW

Hi. Instead of removing my unresolved report, why don't you just take a look at it and get it sorted out? The whole point of the noticeboard is to stop edit warring and have it sorted out. Ignoring cases doesn't solve anything; in fact it just defeats the purpose of having the noticeboard in the first place. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

MrMoustacheMM, I would have replied substantively to this inquiry if you hadn't reverted again. As I said in my edit summary just a moment ago, if you revert again, you'll be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, reply now then, I'm listening. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You make several assumptions. First, you assume your report was ignored. Administrators evaluate reports. They don't always rule, and they don't always even comment. That doesn't mean the report was ignored. Second, nothing compels an administrator to comment on a report or rule on a report just because it's filed. Third, not ruling on a report doesn't "defeat the purpose" of the noticeboard. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would guess that most reports are ruled on. Yours isn't the first, though, that wasn't ruled on; nor will it be the last. Finally, you do not get to insist on a report being ruled on. Nor is it permissible for you to restore an archived report just because it wasn't ruled on. As I said in my first edit summary reverting you, if you have something new to say, e.g., more edit warring since the report was archived, then create a new report. You can always link to the archived report for context.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will start off by apologising for reverting you and restoring my report. As you say, I made several assumptions that were incorrect (although, in my defence, I had no way of knowing they were incorrect).

Perhaps these should be spelled out on ANEW, as it looked from my perspective that my report was simply ignored. A comment in the top area saying something like "Not all reports are commented on or resolved. If your report is archived without resolution, do not restore it; instead begin a new case if the issue continues." Had a comment like this existed, I wouldn't have restored the report in the first place, and I certainly wouldn't have reverted you.

Anyway, in this case, should I go ahead and remove the other editor's edits again, and if they again revert, start a new case at ANEW? I want to do this correctly, so please help me with the next step. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people know about the reports, so adding language to the instructions seems unnecessary. We can't be explicit about everything. Gets too wordy. I'd have to look at the articles and the reverts to give you a definitive answer, but, generally, if a revert seems warranted and you are not edit warring by doing it, you should be okay. Just don't get sucked into a situation in which you are arugably as guilty as the user you're reporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look? As you say, I don't want to become just as guilty as the user I'm reporting. Carnival Is Forever is the main article in question. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would spend your time on the talk page of the article discussing the dispute and hopefully obtaining a consensus rather than reverting. Neither of you has breached 3RR, but both of you have been going back and forth.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give that a go, although I'm not expecting much to come of it (the IP has ignored every message I've left on their talk page). Thanks for the help. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP on Talk:Men's rights movement

Bbb23 I just wanted to point out an edit here[1] that seems to me to be walking a very fine line WRT WP:BLP. It describes a named individual as a "radical nutcase" and another individual as "a highly partisan author". This isn't the worst I've ever seen but CSDarrow's rhetoric and attitude is escalating into inappropriate territories (see also his extremely civil comments to me at NPOVN)--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, Cailil's intemperate tone and suggestions of filibustering are not helpful, here [2].— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm afraid CSDarrow I'm calling a spade a spade here. Filibustering is "a delaying tactic, especially the use of long, often irrelevant speeches given in order to delay progress or the making of a decision". The points made in the thread on that page are irrelevant and delaying progress. The matter has been asked and answered. It's time to move on. And to let other people move on and actually improve articles within wikipedia's framework for quality & standards. Rather than waste time with ad hoc and spurious reasons for excluding things and delaying progress for so long that others will be too exhausted to continue. Furthermore despite being frank there is nothing "intemperate" in my comments and I'm very very happy for any number of sysops to examine every single comment in that discussion by every single user in fine detail - in fact I'd encourage it--Cailil ^talk 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 could you have a look at this regarding filibustering[3]--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Under no circumstance should a living person be referred to as a "nutcase" on Wikipedia. WP:BLP applies to all of Wikipedia, including talkpages. I'm ashamed and embarrassed that this edit lasted as long as it did. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reer Woqooyi

Hi Bbb23. The User:Reer Woqooyi appears to be block evading again. A dynamic ip is pushing similar pov related to the Puntland-Somaliland dispute from the same Dubai ip address (new: [4], [5]; previous: [6], [7]). You suggested a possible range block if the disruption continues, which appears to be the situation. Could you please have a look? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, could you please do me a favor and put together a list of the IPs Woqooyi has used? The only way I can evaluate a possible range block is to know the parameters of the range. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Here are some of Woqooyi's Dubai ones (217.164.177.144, 217.164.178.195, 217.164.185.80), and here are the new Dubai ips (217.164.177.219, 217.164.188.227, 217.164.189.43, 217.164.177.224, 217.164.177.44, 217.164.182.154, 217.164.188.30, 217.164.184.21, 217.164.181.138, 217.164.179.36). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Using 217.164.77.44 as the lowest in that group and 217.164.189.43 as the highest, I get "217.164.0.0/16 (up to 65536 users would be blocked)" from here. I need confirmation of that and an opinion as whether that's too many to rangeblock. I'm not an expert, but I don't think we normally are willing to block that large a range, but it may also depend on the kind of IPs, so I'm pinging someone who knows more than I do about this: Phil?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've checkusered the range and if we were to range block there would be a few IP editors who would have to create accounts to continue editing. I could block for 1 week on a {{anonblock}} basis, and see if that helps? PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil, I'm afraid I don't understand whatyou mean by an "anonblock basis". Does that differ from a "normal" rangeblock? My guess is one week would be kinda short for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I just mean a normal range block - Special:Block/217.164.0.0/16 - with the first box ticked to prevent account creation, and the last box not ticked to allow logged in users to edit normally. Otherwise, I agree that 1 week is a little short, but on the other hand, even this would cause some collateral damage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we'll find out how much good it did after the week is over. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23 and User:PhilKnight. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

He has another sock as well called Kurlibah; which is being plan disruptive. AcidSnow (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean sock but it seems you are accusing me of being that banned reer waqooyi person. i think the adminstrators can see who is who. so far i did nothing distruptive but you are the one who is dictating me. ironically you are accusing me before i accused you ! reer waqooyi means the northerner (somaliland location of east africa) so i can understand this banned person is from somaliland. clearly acid does not like any body who is interested about somaliland pages and thats the reason he/she put my name here. Kurlibah (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed User:AcidSnow. Kurlibah looks to be either another Reer Woqooyi sock or meatpuppet. Please also see here. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism

Per your previous locking of Radical feminism (Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked), User:Tutelary (at that time User:Ging287) is engaged in edit warring with a relatively new editor still learning the ropes. He just put an edit war notice on her talk page.
Given Tutelary's history there, on your talk page, re: Memills, at RSN discussion and elsewhere, I have to wonder if Tutelary is imposing a defacto men's rights viewpoint on the transgenderism part of the Radical feminism article. (And that topic already has it's own Sexology arbitration.
In this case the issue is that men's rights activists support transgenders (and themselves in some cases) being allowed into all-women's conferences, rest rooms, locker rooms, prisons, etc. and both paint dissenting Radical feminists as bigots and actively and even viciously harass them. This is well documented in RS and Tutlary also reverted this mention in the article. (I'm lost on current status of it all, frankly, with all the reverts.). There are a couple allusions to the association of some members of these groups in discussions. And today Tutelary brought up that "the model should be the Mens Rights article" regarding minority vs. majority viewpoints, again making me suspicious.
You certainly are more familiar than I with these issues and history. So FYI, in case you want to deal with it at your leisure, per your comment at "locked": "I think of this lock as not just a lock but also a warning to everyone that your edits may be scrutinized." Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I glanced at the editing history and the talk page, and I'd have to spend a ton of time to make sense of all the issues and how they are impacted by policy. I have no inclination to do that. If the only connection to the MRM is that one comment by Tutelary mentioning the "model" of the MRM article (nothing else stood out to me in my relatively perfunctory look), that certainly isn't enough for me to act based on the MRM sanctions. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just testing the waters of what's relevant. Guess it's an issue for the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sibtain

Hi Bbb23! It seems that this one is going to be a big mess - I'm sorry you got stuck with it. It probably won't help much, but going by off-wiki evidence, there are at least three groups at play. Mamadoutadioukone, whom I've known about for a while and I've been addressing where I can, has been using socks for paid editing. Svenstpaul, which is part of a small sock farm that I only stumbled across a couple of days ago, although I knew of the master through paid editing - I'll address that one myself, if you like, in the hope of finding a simple fix. And a third group which has been listed as Sibtain, but may or may not be - that one is a bigger pool of editors, including some good hand accounts, who do paid editing through multiple freelancer accounts. I originally thought that they were separate groups, but there is so much crossover in their editing that either it is a small group of separate people working together on paid contracts with socks, or one person running different identities on different freelancer sites, many of which were just shut down. The Skyheight23 group have been working on articles in common with this group.

I think that third group might in the end have two-three different masters, but it is hard to tell. Paid editing can make things complicated. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby, but I never got to the hard part because I messed up the "rearrangement" of the Sibtain and the Mama SPI pages. Unfortunately, the SPI clerk procedures covers only the most basic moves, and I've had to figure out the more complicated ones. I was actually getting better at it, but this one was different, and my understanding of how it would go was flawed. Worse, it's the first time I've come across a technical situation at Wikipedia that couldn't be backed out. Anyhow, I've brought it to the attention of various people, but I think everyone's gone to bed, so it'll remain in a suspended state until it's resolved. If you were to check the Sibtain page now, you'd find that it's been decimated (the archive is still intact). Anyway, even if there isn't a way to get it all back to the way it was, there's at least a way to get back most of it.

I'm feeling rotten and stressed about the whole thing, even though the more rational side of me knows that it's not the end of the world. We get a little carried away about the importance of things in this insular world we administrate. I'm feeling sorry for myself at the moment and going to bed soon. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't imagine that there is anything we can do from our end that can't be fixed. At least you didn't try deleting the front page - I always use that to remind myself of how my mistakes are relatively minor, although I have a list of horror stories I give to students about when I stuffed up in IT jobs. :) I can't help with technical problems, as I'd probably break it even worse, but that should be fixed soon. If you need any other help, though, I've been following these cases for a while in various ways, and I'm happy to do anything at all from my end to help. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy. I need it at the moment. I once blocked someone by mistake. Although I was horrified, I unblocked him fairly quickly. I was lucky, too. It was an editor who didn't give me grief about it. He even found it amusing given all the reasons I gave for the block (which, of course, were intended for someone else). Too bad we don't have more editors like him. As for your help, I appreciate it. The problem is I can't get to the substantive part until the technical part is fixed, and I'm leaving on a short vacation on Thursday and don't intend to touch Wikipedia while away, so either it will languish or it'll have to be taken care of after I return. Even tomorrow's a bad day for me because I have to work my regular job and I have to get ready for the trip. I usually try to avoid SPI clerking during the work week because it can be very demanding, and I don't have the time or the energy. I try to make up for it on the weekends. Here, though, I kinda promised I'd do something. Would that I hadn't. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried blocking by mistake yet, but I've got a long string of stupid rollbacks thanks to a touch screen, including one of Newyorkbrad. :) I can handle some of the accounts, and for the first time in a while I'm not overloaded at uni. I'll see what I can help out on during after surviving today's classes. - Bilby (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Zakir Naik

User:Understandingthetruth is an obvious (and now blocked) sock of User:Thetruthexposed879 that I blocked last night. Just FYI. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR and 108.225.190.118 / EvergreenBean

Looking at an incident from the 30th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:108.225.190.118_reported_by_User:Ian.thomson_.28Result:_Blocked.29)

It looks to me like you were roped into a violation of WP:GAME, rewarded bad behavior, issued a disruptive block, and bit a newcomer.

The article in question has a serious problem in its lead section. The content does not appear to be an accurate summary of the body of the article in emphasis or substance. Indeed, it looks like a kind of POV fork! The IP (who I think created an account "EvergreenBean") posted to the article talk page and appears to have been attempting to constructively address the deficiency, to be reverted multiple times by User:Ian.thomson. Thomson left goofy comments in the edit summaries about "white supremacism", "whitewashing", "censorship", which indicates that at least in the context of that edit war, he's not here to build an encyclopedia. A poster case of WP:POV RAILROAD.

Thomson knew Wikipedia process and the newcomer didn't; Thomson requested a block in order to secure a win in his edit war. I'd put in a request that he be blocked, but I'm only getting a sense of what happened now (when trying to figure out how to fix that lead section) and I don't believe blocks should be punitive.

I do think that the IP was verging on edit warring by responding too quickly to Thomson's disruptive edits. I don't think you did anything deliberately abusive. But the effect of the block appears to have been disruptive (in that it disrupted bona fide edits to bring an article into compliance with WP:LEAD), and you do come out of this with a bit of egg on your face.

Bkalafut (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive? Kooky? @Bkalafut:, would you feel better if I remove the article from my watchlist and WP:DROPIT? And perhaps you could demonstrate that behavior as well instead of being a hypocrite regarding personal attacks. I am insulted by the ignorant suggestion that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. You'd know I was here to build an encyclopedia if you checked my contributions, especially articles like Debtera or Magical Treatise of Solomon. You'd know that if you checked my edit count and saw that most of my edits are to article space (and that I regularly engage editors times almost 200 times as often as you, which would be pretty hard to do without getting in trouble if I wasn't here to build an encyclopedia).

You have no idea what you're talking about, and are attacking me while complaining about me admittedly going a bit far in describing someone who argued that sources demonstrating that British letters saying "let's give them smallpox" (followed by the Native Americans getting smallpox) wasn't adequate for anything more than "alleged."

So please, shut up and get over something that happened last week. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This post demonstrates the broader problem. I'm not going to engage about Pontiac's War, NPOV and WP:LEAD problems here. You don't get to write a POV lead that doesn't match the body of an article. Suffice it to say that your attitude and your WP:POV RAILROAD antics are now transparent--you could not even avoid carrying them over to this page. No amount of chest-thumping about edit counts compensates for your wild, fist-swinging tone, violation of policies (WP:LEAD, edit warring with the IP/EvergreenBean, WP:GAME, etc.) or manifest bad moral character.

I'll take you at your word that you are ordinarily constructive. If you can't write this particular article's lead section with a neutral point of view, can't avoid slandering a contributor by mischaracterizing the dispute even days later, please refrain from the article that's making you disruptive,@Ian.thomson:. But we're getting away from the point. The point of posting here was to make Bbb23 aware that he (that's the gender-neutral "he") unwittingly made a disruptive block and to put your disruptive behavior on his radar. If you're going to defend yourself, this juvenile "Bkalafut contributed X and I contributed 100X" is not the way to do it.Bkalafut (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My point about the number of edits wasn't any sort of edit count privilege, but pointing out that if I acted in as much bad faith as you assumed from me, I'd've gotten into a lot more trouble by now. I pointed out articles I've put a lot of work into to demonstrate that your claims that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia are incompetently lacking in evidence (if I assume more good faith than you did from me).

If your point was purely about Bbb23's actions, you should not have mentioned me in ways that amount to personal attacks.

I'm willing for us to drop this drama, go our separate ways, and continue building an encyclopedia. Are you, @Bkalafut:? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone's leaving goofy comments in the edit summaries it's not a personal attack to call the comments goofy. If this was about you (and not Bbb23--why did you even show up here?) it was about bad behavior. Putting bad behavior into words is not the same as making a personal attack. And when you make accusations that anonymous IPs are "white supremacists" and game the system to get the upper hand in an edit war, the assumption of good faith is wiped out by observation of bad faith. But yes. Let's move on. Bkalafut (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I was roped into anything. Ian wasn't the only one reverting the IP, and the IP merited the block. However, I did also warn Ian about his languge here. Unless there's something new here, I consider this a closed issue, and I'm glad at the end you both decided to "move on".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR and Syrian Civil War Sanctions Notice

During a recent dispute when Worldedixor brought me to your page for perceived infractions of the 1RR restriction imposed on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page, in your first response to Worldedixor here, you say that I had been officially notified of the sanctions (which I had been, although I hadn't thought it was to do with ISIS editing as I said in a later thread). This cannot have had anything to do with editing on the ISIS page as far as I can tell because this was the first time that my supposed infractions there were raised. You found that I had not infringed the 1RR, I have never broken any other rule as far as I am aware, and I am not clear on what grounds was I not only sent the notification but put on the 2014 warnings list. I know some time has passed since then, but I would still like any answer to my question, please. It irks me that I am on some sort of blacklist when as far as I am aware I have done nothing wrong. --P123ct1 (talk)

MRM sanctions/CSDarrow

Hi Bbb23, you wrote that any editor who continues to edit the marital rape paragraph without a clear consensus risks being blocked. Today CSDarrow removed the disputed paragraph again without a consensus. That's his third (1, 2, 3) removal of the sentence in the course of a few days. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that what is there atm is incorrect/un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not knowingly publish incorrect information, there is also a clear consensus on that. The way this is playing out I am beginning to feel all of this, including my last block, should probably go to WP:ArbCom. Other arbitration is unlikely to work due to the depth of the division. CSDarrow (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus and at least four editors who disagree with you who. Your arguments are dishonest and you are gaming the system to remove content from an article that you personally dislike --5.81.51.85 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow that's completely wrong. You were shown numerous more sources that contradict you. Furthermore you were warned already that your refusal to get the point WRT those sources is/was tendentious. You're now disrupting wikipedia to make a point--Cailil ^talk 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• FYI: Following this discussion on Drmies talk page, HJ Mitchell blocked CSDarrow for a year. On a different note, the number of unconstructive IP edits seems to be increasing on the MRM page. Does the level of disruption warrant semi-protection? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is away - it mght be better to ask another uninvolved sysop--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U for user problems

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor to help address problems with this user. Please feel free to add your own issues in the appropriate sections, endorse, or add comments on the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)