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.

Gauravagarwal

Gaurav Agarwal, back again under a slightly different page name, created by Wikipageagarwal (talk · contribs). SPI opened. [1] FYI. 220 of ^Borg 07:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some assistance requested

Hi Bbb23. I've seen you around the SPI desks so am requesting guidance. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Ali, the majority of comments are from new editors, whose accounts have been created from October 2016 till April 2017. While this may be a coincidence, I wanted your assistance in checking the said editors. If you could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks. Lourdes 10:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the Michael W Fitzgerald page

You undid my edits, and since you asked me to explain myself, here I am. However, your only comments for me are within the edit notes themselves rather than via Talk, and they're too vague for me to appropriately form any direct response: "quote is misleading, it's really an article quote not a legal team quote".... "not neutrally worded"... Yet, a) the sources I included are legitimate and reputable, b) the statements are true, fact-based and sourced, c) this is directly related to his career as a judge, so I'm not sure why it should be considered inappropriate. Had he made nationwide news for a different ruling, would that have made a difference?

1) As far as the quotes in the first edit, it is my understanding that referring to a journalist's interview with the attorneys directly involved in the case in reference to a ruling on said case is legitimate. However, as you raised this point, I did add a sports lawyer's article on the case as an additional reference backing up the quotes. While the defendant's legal team chose not to comment publicly, the plaintiff's did. That is a fact which I specifically noted in the original edit, and is neither a biased opinion of mine nor a deliberate choice to leave out of the defendant's side of the story, so I'm unclear as to how that factual reality is somehow misleading.

Unless Wikipedia considers the Washington Post to be an invalid or unacceptable source in general, I don't understand how it would be unacceptable only for this one article about this one case. Could you please clarify? Because if I can't paraphrase news articles from reliable sources, I need to know what I CAN do here.

2) I then removed that section, but you still undid the change I made saying that the following language was "not neutral":

On September 20, 2016, he made national headlines with his controversial ruling that a rape victim would be required to publicly reveal her identity in a high profile case involving NBA basketball player Derrick Rose. [9] [10] The ruling was controversial because pseudonyms are often given to alleged rape and assault victims in order to help avoid re-victimizing them, especially in cases where the accused has a high public profile. [11] [12]

(I would have elaborated on the types of re-victimization that happens to rape/assault victims when their identity is known, but I was afraid that would result in an undo as well, so I left that to the sources I cited.)

In your opinion, where and how, exactly, is that language not neutral?

If you believed that it was "not neutral", why delete the entire section altogether instead of editing it to make it neutral according to your standards?

Please also explain how a person's sexuality is "absolutely noteworthy" as pertaining to his or her career, but his job performance is not.

Thanks. Hope1275 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Hope1275 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Bbb23. Do you happen to have a few minutes to take a look at Harold S. Koplewicz RE BLP and promo? (see Talk) Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Enquiry (no urgency, TPS)

I found this eventually by date-searching your worklist. "However, I do not want tags on the accounts". Why all the secrecy? This is not helpful for those of us who are generally conscious to observe editing-patterns. I don't expect you to now look at the talk page where I initially tried to engage with this dedicated-spa showing massive cruft at Guy Martin, but what I was seeing (in what you relate to as the oldest identity) was far from newbie with barely any mistakes, and I concluded it was deliberate use of Visual editor as a ploy to disguise the previous editing experience. I eventually took Guy Martin off watchlist and as I'm on/off Wiki, should there be recent changes, I often wizz through them, which is why it's taken me so long to find. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: There are many reasons why I, another CheckUser, or an SPI clerk may choose not to tag accounts. One of the most common is WP:DENY, but that reason wasn't applicable in this case. I can't share much more with you. Not that I don't sympathize with your reason for wanting to know, but, unfortunately, my obligations sometimes trump other editors' wishes. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

William Rehnquist ???????????????????????????

As the first paragraph of the Early life section indicates, Rehnquist's middle name at birth was Donald, which he later changed to Hubbs. This is supported by two highly reliable sources, a book by Linda Greenhouse and a law journal article by Chief Justice John Roberts. 209.34.114.203 has been repeatedly inserting erroneous information into the article ([2], [3], [4], [5]). I have reverted his edits. I also added a quote to a citation from one of the sources to demonstrate indubitably Rehnquist's given name at birth and fixed a deadlink for one of the supportiing citations. Then you came along, and for no good reason whatsoever, reverted my constructive edits. This gave 209.34.114.203 carte blanche to again insert the erroneous information. How are you going to fix this, admin? 32.218.41.26 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've found a good middle ground for ensuring no misinformation is being misrepresented, in either iteration of this editing conflict. Just leave it out. Garchy (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not much of a solution; it now states he changed his name to Hubbs, without explaining what his previous middle name was. 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, I removed that too. Cited or not, neither iteration seems necessary to the encyclopedic integrity of the article, so long as no misinformation is being represented. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, both Linda Greenhouse and Chief Justice John Roberts thought it was germane and significant information. Besides, you know you'll just be reverted on your removal of information (not by me, but surely by some editor who thinks it's significant). 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility I'll deal with. You've also touched upon an issue that Wikipedia deals with - other stuff exists. I don't want to keep annoying Bbb23, so I've replied on the talk page of the article in question. Garchy (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP

I doubt if these IPs (59.89.47.162 and 117.215.226.154) is a new comer here. Is it of the cases one may report here? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please consider my question? Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your original question is no, it's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Silver Master

I'm not sure we should be eliminating discussion and communication. Moving it perhaps ... Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reply because I also was one of the previous participants to that conversation. I think that it is way overdone at this point, but have no strong opinion on what to do about it. I would have no objection to hatting it with a warning note or similar... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Moving it where?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied to the poster on my own talk page. I'm not sure if there should be further discussion on it, in a more formal sense, or not. To be honest, I've been working a crazy week, through the night more than once, and don't have the time to do enough research and present a reasonable case at the moment. All I'm good for is the occasional drive-by comment :) at the moment. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No more drive-bys. If you have a suggestion for an appropriate forum to discuss whatever issues you appear to have and you have a legitimate purpose in mind, let me know. Frankly, I think it's more important for you to get some sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't commented in over a week! Yes, sleep is important - which is why I've had low profile all week - well 'cept Monday supper break ... wasn't short of sleep at that point. I've no intention to take it to any forum at this point - that's not fair for anyone, including me. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And it's all complicated by their post-banning behaviour. One could conclude that they never should have been banned in the first place, but would likely not change anything. So why bother? So it becomes a more philosophical debate. What are the minimum requirements, because the very concept that someone could have language skill that are good enough to be comprehended, but not good enough to edit Wikipedia, seems to contrast with fundamental pillars of this place. There are parts of WP:CIR, particularly on language, that I find offensive, personally - and doesn't seem acceptable in a multi-cultural society. If what one writes is mostly unintelligible, that would be a different issue. But from what I read, that doesn't appear to be the case. So what is the appropriate forum? That's really the only question I have at this point, if we take away the discussion of penalizing, or removing penalties from, a particular person. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no appropriate forum. I asked you whether you had one in mind on the outside chance that you had thought of something that hadn't occurred to me. Nor do I want you to again air your grievances about any of the sanctions that have been imposed. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't had a good thought - best I had was thinking of discussing it in a way that didn't air grievances - or even necessarily identify the case in question; my best though so far was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - because the big downside of losing such editors, is that it's even more difficult to counter the anglocentric bias; but I think the issue is a bit more central than that, and that seems too fringe; perhaps a question for the WP:Non-administrator's noticeboard; though no time soon. As for my grievances about the original sanctions, I think my point has been clear - so nothing else to say there. I had intended to take it to WP:Drama board after the dust settled - but now that the user has gone rogue, the question of what admin action I'm looking for, would be ... none - so no point. Thanks for the dialogue - I always feel that more communication is better, especially if we aren't in full agreement. Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Molarland

I reverted that edit on the SPI page per WP:DENY (think it's this page I'm thinking of) because it's obvious the above user is also a sockpuppet. Note their edit warring on User:The abominable Wiki troll also, not going to bother warring with them since I assume they'll soon be blocked. Home Lander (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Hentsonlasyl

User:Hentsonlasyl appears as if he or she may be our old friend HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Yup, along with four other accounts I found - all blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. And the first poster does not have Harvey Carter's IP address range. (Hentsonlasyl (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC))

How would you know? Your account was just created -- unless, of course, you were HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User: Rafacasima

I have joined wikipedia because I think that a discussion in a page was going the wrong way. I you are saying that im a span. You exclude the sucinte bio that I had made. What can I do to prove that I just want to defend a point of view in the publicity of a subject?Rafacasima (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Explain

Explain your revert. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Now at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae_and_WP:DISRUPT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

His revert has nothing to do with Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: See WP:BOOMERANG --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: See WP:FUCK. Never did I claim I was infallible. However, my actions don't undermine the actions of another. Vice-versa as well. Just because my hands are not clean does not mean I can't point out other unclean hands. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

your comment on my page

Thanks for the note clarifying the details of edit war without using insults like "crap" as indicated in your original "explanation" for reverting my initial edit. Martindo (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "crap" wasn't directed at you or your changes - it was directed at this kind of issue and material, which often gets Wikipedians into interminable discussions on what is "correct".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SCOTUS page

Hi. User:Martindo has filed an arbitration request (after once again reverting the page to his prefered content) regarding the issue of "hispanic" in the Supreme Court of the United States page; the arbitration request lists him twice and me once. I thought I would alert you about the request page, since you also reverted but were somehow excluded from the request. Magidin (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a mediation request, not arbitration (at least he's not that foolish). At the moment it's more of a mess than anything else. I wonder why he listed himself twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited WP for a long time, generally enough to get voting rights each year. I only resorted to mediation once (about a Bob Dylan song) which was rejected outright due to lack of Talk. So, it was my incomplete understanding of the instructions that said to name yourself after a user tag that led to being listed twice. I chose not to include Bbb23 due to casual use of crap, foolish, and similar emotionally charged words, reflecting the attitude that my edit should be dismissed outright. In contrast, Magidin invited me to Talk. Martindo (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My mistake (in confusing arbitrarion with mediation). Magidin (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

‪Hi, Bbb23! Are you around? This troll, reportedly socks of User:Nate Speed, changes IPs with amazing speed. Currently attacking NeilN's talk page. Could we get a rangeblock, do you think? ‬Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) ‪
82.212.78.17‬, 82.212.78.20, 82.212.78.23‬, 82.212.78.22‬, and 82.212.78.18‬

They have recently attacked my talk page too. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind - they got blocked as a proxy server. Thanks anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)