User talk:Bbb23/Archive 45

Cambodian sock you previously blocked is back

Hello. You recently blocked User:Chetra Angkor as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phnom Penh Skyline/Archive. It appears they are back as User:Chetra Dell. In this diff you can see them restoring PPS's pet content and in their contribution history, you can see they have recreated the same draft article that was previously deleted. Not to mention the obvious similarity in the user names.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User account

Sir, Mollywood.lover is a puppet of Muhammed.suhail.103.199.161.32 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I need to request that please delete page User talk:Yisrael Kristal as the reason of the CSD G10 (Attack page). The revision history shows the attack. Another reason for deletion is that the page was already created once and deleted and the page was created again as an attack page. So please delete User talk:Yisrael Kristal. Thank you. 117.99.187.165 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording on Template:Sockmaster

Hey, I don't want to dig up the diffs, but if I recall correctly I attempted to fix this some time ago and you reverted me, and when I asked you how it should be fixed to address my concern you waved it off as not being a problem since the editors in question are gone one way or the other (or something to that effect).

But since then I've noticed that it actually does lead to misunderstandings like this. I'm not sure if AGF is for or against amending blocked user page templates based on the possibility that tendentious editors will make arguments based on how they are worded, but I believe AGF forces us to assume that wasn't a tendentious editor making a disruptive comment with the intention of triggering a traumatized stalking victim, but rather a good-faith misunderstanding based on a plain reading of the template. And I was just reminded of the whole affair because I happened across this tag that was placed on the talk page of another user who probably would have been indeffed for hounding/harassment had JBW not stumbled across the SPI two months late.

I really think the misleading wording of has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts (emphasis added) needs to be addressed, preferably by a new parameter that allows for has been blocked indefinitely and the account owner is also suspected of abusively using multiple accounts and has been blocked indefinitely and CheckUser evidence subsequently confirmed that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. What do you think?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think the template, which is heavily used, should be left alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

MacPraughan

This user is claiming that the account checkuser pinged as their sock actually belongs to their spouse and the CU was a false positive because they use the same network. I don't know them and can't speak to whether this is in fact the case, but I thought you should at least be aware of the claim, in the event you were not. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird bookspace edits from a year ago

Special:Contributions/Jimjames35 has some rather odd bookspace edits. Not sure if this is sockish, but I figured since you were an admin anyway you might have some idea of what to do.

I'd say it was likely to be EC perm gaming even if it's not some sort of sock, but it was a year ago and the account hasn't done anything else since.

Thoughts appreciated. --Izno (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Users that haven't edited in over a year don't interest me unless there's some tie-in to someone who is editing now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

IP address a sockpuppet?

Thanks for your recent edit to the Werner Erhard page. I am wondering if the IP address user that has been editing there is related to a recent sockpuppet investigation? These are some of their edits that makes it look as if this is so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetsuya_Chikushi&diff=prev&oldid=846224184&diffmode=source and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetsuya_Chikushi&action=history Thanks MLKLewis (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in IPs by request.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Greg4Oli is an obvious MariaJaydHicky. Can you block the user? 183.171.115.101 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan

Hi,

Just in case you don't get the ping at WP:AN, I have opened a discussion regarding the UTRS request that MaranoFan has made to unblock their account. I would appreciate your input as you blocked them. You can find the discussion here.

It also gave me the chance to drop by here and say hi!--5 albert square (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, unless Ponyo consented to an unblock, you should not have taken the request to AN. The usual course of events is to check first with the blocking CU. As far as I can tell, Ponyo just responded to the call for a CU at UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I did indeed run a check based on a CU request at UTRS. The typical sequence of events in such cases is for the reviewing admin to take the Standard Offer request to AN for review after giving the all clear by a checkuser at UTRS. The blocking checkuser definitely should be notified and consulted, as 5 albert square has done here, but bringing the SO request to AN after CU review at UTRS is not outside the norm. (And that's a lot of alphabet soup!).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, sorry I should have mentioned in my message above, this is not outside the norm for UTRS. It's as Ponyo has said above. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I didn't know this was not "outside the norm", and even if it were, you still wouldn't have to apologize. Apologies are unnecessary from people I like. BTW, I must say I'm not keen on how this apparent practice works. Just because there's no evidence that a user hasn't socked in the last three months doesn't necessarily mean the community should decide whether they should be unblocked. I realize this is an extreme example, but what if Jaredgk2008 says he hasn't socked for six months and a CU determines that he hasn't socked for the last three months, would that go to the community? There are undoubtedly more realistic examples than that one, but my brain unfortunately suffers from a blur of socks I've checked and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I know Bbb23 it's odd isn't it? I block so many people it's a real blur so I also can't think of an example but I read and re-read that policy so many times today I'm sure I know it off by heart! It is bizarre though especially as with CheckUser blocks they cannot always make everything public.--5 albert square (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User Mevagiss

Hi, I noticed that in March you blocked this user for sockpuppetry and was wondering if you could possibly take a look at this guy

• Tigranis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 139.143.150.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account was created just a few day's after Mevagiss and his socks were blocked and has a very similar editing pattern, mostly focusing on nationality and to a lesser extent Tennis & date formats. --Comnenus (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're correct about Tigranis: confirmed and blocked.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Menj

Hello Bbb23, forgive me for being a bit impatient but I opened a new sockpuppet investigation about a month ago. Since then not a single user has edited or commented on the page. I know you and other admins working in this area are very busy, but I was hoping if you or someone else could take a quick look. Thank you very much Inter&anthro (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I rarely get involved in reports that don't involve checks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about Matthew King (composer)

Thanks for cleaning this up a bit. It's still rather promotional in my view, complete with cherry-picked praise quotes. I've had my eye on it since cleaning up the copyvio in Brunel (opera project) in 2010, one of a whole suite of articles devoted to the composer and his works, some of which are barely notable. There's yet another one in the making. I'm rather concerned about three SPAs ([1],[2], and [3]) who have been assiduously "tending" his article (and ones related to it). Coincidentally and somewhat unusually for the main editors to a single article, they all use the names or parts of the names of deceased real people, e.g. Conlon Nancarrow (who like the subject composed for piano) and Leila Rendel and James Frederick Lowry [King]. The latter two have close connections to each other [4] and potentially the article's subject [5]. All 3 seem to be editing in tandem. I'm also wondering how one of these users was able to (a) obtain and (b) claim to hold the copyright to this image and how another one knew this obscure information which as far as I can see is published nowhere online. I've left COI notices on their talk pages. Any thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

All three accounts are  Confirmed and blocked. I came across the article by linking on Random article and saw how messy it was. Now that King's promoter is gone, it will be easier for you to clean up the article...if you wish. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this! Next week, I plan to re-write the article into something encyclopedic, which it is definitely not at the moment. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I... somehow read "composter" for a moment...^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 10:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Stale?

Is he stale?[6] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In the last report you filed on July 27, Sro23 told you to stop filing reports requesting CU without providing a reason for the request. I agree, and it has to be a good reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia

I'm just curious why my CU request was declined? --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't decline your CU request; I removed the report you added. In any event, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworld.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If I may butt in: Saqib, your report was redundant to the check I had already requested in the case Bbb23 mentioned, and I believe he was already checking it or had already checked it. Your report wasn't wrong, it just made us some work for no benefit. I added notes from that case to the Pakistanpedia case afterwards to connect the dots anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How/where to request a checkuser action

I would like to request a check on a suspicious-looking user, is this the right place to do so? I can't find the format or the procedure / how to do so. I have the evidence. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to file a report at WP:SPI and request a CU at filing. You need solid evidence expressed in diffs and a reason why you're requesting the CU. If you're thinking of only one user, forget it. Socking can only be done by at least two different users.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course there are two users involved, the puppet master and the puppet. I am getting the hang of this now. All the diffs are lined up, and the reasons behind, thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Re. your deletion of my CU request, if you can kindly explain what I did wrong, I will try to fix it myself; I read the instructions and tried to follow them... MacPraughan (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What instructions? Did you look at what you produced after you finished? The structure was completely wrong. You had templates that were incomplete. How could you have thought it was correct?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry, it looked OK in the preview. It's the first time I've done this. I'll do it again in my sandbox, review the instructions, double-check all the templates and try again. Thanks for the pointers, I'll get there in the end. MacPraughan (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

request checkuser

hi, I requested a CU so what does this mean[7]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• ok, I got itWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ws95684--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW there are 2 versions Draft:Michael_Belkin_(ophthalmologist) and Draft:Michael_Belkin_(professor)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless work at WP:SPI you are hereby presented with this Barnstar. Thanks for everything you do, it is appreciated (and not just by me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So where does the nomination of an IPV6 sock belong if not on SPI?

I nominated 2405:3800:80:37c8:fd52:5c19:814f:5a1a (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as the sock master but 2405:3800:83:9656:e534:a369:6931:a16a (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2405:3800:500:fa63:e89a:5d0a:6c97:5b0b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have both been active on Noah Hanifin and other articles. Since two of those IPs are blocked, the third appears to be block evasion. So it appears to be block evasion and a range block is probably in order. Yet, you deleted the nomination with a G6 and once again made no explanation to me how to continue but did state that it did not belong here. Where does a request for an IP range block belong? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't include three IPs at the SPI you filed. You included only one as the "master" and repeated it as the "puppet". You can refile the SPI but this time list all three IPs. I can tell you already, though, that the range is very wide: 2405:3800:0:0:0:0:0:0/37. You should take a look at it before filing to see how many of the edits to that range are disruptive and how many are not. Otherwise, I'm not sure that it will go anywhere. But I wouldn't delete the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for information, the following are the recent edits of the /37: Special:Contributions/2405:3800:0:0:0:0:0:0/37. Walter, when asking admins to block a large range, you should be confident that the block has a net benefit. So you might have to review a lot of contributions to be sure. Meanwhile I semiprotected Noah Hanifin for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop talking down to me? You're right I did not include all three, but that's not the reason you removed the SPI nor was any discussion opened with me about why it was removed. So do you care to address why the original SPI was speedliy deleted instead of deflecting?

The range is rather large. Why a 37-bit mask and not a smaller mask? Special:Contributions/2405:3800:83:9656:e534:a369:6931:a16a/32 is exactly the range that needs to be blocked, with only two possibly constructive edits in the range over the past week. The semi-protection of the article is appreciated though, but there are other targets as you can see with the 32-bit mask. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Walter, you not only didn't include all three, you only included one. As in, you reported that IPxxx was suspected of being a sock of IPxxx. It was nonsense - accidental no doubt, but still nonsense. I was also going to say but edit-conflicted with Bbb23 earlier that filing reports on IPv6 editors is sort of unhelpful - they're so unique that you can never really say which one is the master. I was going to suggest if this situation happened again that you contact the blocking admin first, or just go right to ANI where there are more admins familiar with range blocks. Also, a /32 mask is larger than a /37: in CIDR notation the number refers to the number of bits in the mask, not the number of unmasked bits. The guideline suggests that /33 (approximately 2 billion end users) is about the largest range that should ever be considered for a block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocking /32 ranges, which is the largest range the software will allow to be blocked, are rare. The most common American ones I see belong to T-Mobile.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the increase. So again, you closed the SPI rather than asking for additional details. I will stop filing on V6 addresses then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been more edits from the /37 since this thread was started and, given their nature, I've gone ahead with a one-week block of Special:Contributions/2405:3800:0:0:0:0:0:0/37. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for teaching me on guidelines in Wikipedia

Iwannacrib (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ip blocked via checkuser

Hello Bbb. I noticed you recently blocked [8] ip 122.8.26.108 via checkuser. Could you disclose to me which account/ip the now-blocked ip was a sock of? It may be helpful if another ostensibly new editor chooses to involve themselves with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pets of Imran Khan.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

After the number of SPIs you've been involved in, you should know that policy prohibits me from disclosing a connection between named accounts and IPs. As for other IPs, you will need to use your own judgment, but I would err on the side of not reverting an IP's edit just because, for example, they edit from the same location.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The AfD subject does seem to be politically charged, so I would not count out other ips/new editors from joining in. Thus, reverting any ip edits coming from Pakistan would be a major over-correction, so I will just place a -not a ballot- template.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

TPA revoked, not immediately clear why?

Hey, just a quick question. At User talk:71.178.34.108, I noticed an odd set of blocks; I had warned the user earlier today for edit warring. With no intervening edits by that IP address, they were blocked by @Ferret:, reblocked by you for 1 month, and then when they asked for an explanation, TPA was revoked. I'm just trying to figure out what lead to that. They were edit warring at the Video Game crash article, but did not continue the edit war, then in rapid succession comes the two blocks and TPA access revoked. What's up? --Jayron32 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked because their response to the warning was to post it back to my talk page with altered text and false signature. Additionally, I already suspected this IP might be a sock. Bbb23's later extension of the block and TPA revoke appears to be in response to checkuser data, which proves the socking suspicion. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: It was blocked as a sock of Jakandsig, in addition to Spike Danton (possibly others?). Spike was definitely under suspicion of being Jakandsig, and this IP was editing the same patterns even before any CU data. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the explanation. I will keep an eye out for similar patterns once I familiarize myself with him, and will be glad to help out in the future. --Jayron32 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic, does JoshKT get your spidey-senses tingling? Only one edit, but the edit summaries and editing pattern seems to match Jakandsig... --Jayron32 17:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree suspicious but not quite enough to go on. One of Spike's edits to the same page was the same topic, of Fairchild. -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Architect 134

I'm not sure what you meant by this revert as the Erikcagey block rationale says that they are a A134 sock. Where do I go to report "hey, there's a ban evader who has possibly made hundreds of sockpuppet accounts over the last 15 years"? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I blocked Erikcagey as a checkuser confirmed Architect 134 sock. The account is unrelated to either you or RivetHeadCulture outside of the fact that their M.O. is to find disputes at various noticeboards and insert themself into the dispute pretending to be a sock of one of the participants. I assume Bbb23 removed the report because it was irrelevant to that particular SPI, which is what they explained in their edit summary.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

[9]: you probably know who this is. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Which CheckUsers are Jewish? There've been a slew of them recently, e.g., Check2userr. Most, but not necessarily all, are operated by the same person, but there were others before. If they are a well-known LTA, I don't know who.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm getting kind of tired of it. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Tdn1990

Thanks for blocking this sock, I was keeping an eye on them but hadn't seen anything that was conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Another check, please?

Just finished reading the Slowking4 investigation. Perhaps you might want to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vase of Flowers and Conch Shell and see if there are any iVotes that quack. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not enough to justify a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok - I'm still learning about CU and the process. To avoid screwing anything up, I'll just ask in advance that since the article was created by a sock, who also participated in the discussion, and the AfD result was no consensus, is the best next step to let that AfD stand as is, and simply redirect the article Vase of Flowers and Conch Shell to Anne Vallayer-Coster considering (a) the info in the article focuses more on the artist, (b) the painting is already shown in the artist's gallery, and (c) the image file itself contains a good bit of info about the painting? There are other articles by that same sock, such as Madame Élisabeth de France and Portrait of Catherine Balebina, (noting that I have only checked a few of the sock's contributions), and since the story is similar to the article that began this discussion, I'm thinking a redirect or merge is appropriate for them as well. Your thoughts? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss these issues with Beetstra? He knows more about Slowking4 than anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: nah, no obvious socks there, except for the article creator sock. Not his style to use socks to stack !votes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Unblock requests

See User talk:Scoopskidoopski, User talk:This-is-name, User talk:Kparker095, User talk:Luckycat092710. I've been clearing some unblock requests and CAT:UNB and noticed a bunch of your handiwork, so I thought I'd get input on all of them. I know at least two are related, but the first I can't put into any sock drawer, and the last seems to have a good-faith explanation and I can't find abusive editing from any of them; they have been used serially and don't seem to be disruptive on their own. If you could perhaps elaborate on the first and fourth, it would help me respond to their unblock requests, and the middle two also have an innocent explanation, though I would ask for assurances they would avoid COI editing. --Jayron32 18:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I have nothing to say about any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay... Well, you blocked them all for socking, and at least with the first I can't identify which other accounts they used. And the fourth one seems to have a good explanation. If you could tell me what other accounts the first has been blocked for using, I can respond intelligently to his request. And if you have no objections beyond the multiple accounts to unblocking the fourth, I plan to do so. If the others agree to avoid COI editing, would you object to unblocking them? --Jayron32 18:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You should be able to figure out the other accounts used by Scoopskidoopski just by looking at their userpage. I'll make it easier for you: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scoopskidoopski. As for the other two cases, I don't consent to your unblocking anyone, but I will revisit them in the next couple of days so I can hopefully tell you something more meaningful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I will be declining his request presently. As for the others, when you get the chance to review them, let me know. Just trying to clear some old admin backlogs. Thanks again for your help! --Jayron32 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Sir, in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhdsuhail111 Mollywood.lover and Sagar.kottappuram777 could be unlikely, but Mollywood.lover and Muhammed.suhail is the same person. It's that evident from their behavior and editing pattern. New account continues what the blocked ones did, which in turn was created solely to add exaggerated box office figures of Mammootty films.137.97.143.166 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

HrushiReddy

Hi Bbb23. This user just tripped some filters and showed up at AIV. While I am not seeing any obvious vandalism they do seem to be unusually well versed in things like citing references and the like for a brand new editor. Some of their attempted edits blocked by the filter are on Public image of Narendra Modi, a subject which has been controversial. Of course this may well just be an IP editor who finally decided to create an account, or someone who is good at reading instructions. Anyways I thought it might be worth a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think he's just a disruptive user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo on ANI

I was wondering if you could please shut this down now, as it's getting childish annoying and very much out of control. I opened it up because I thought there was an issue, but now I feel certain users are simply bullying other users, Wikihounding, etc, it's just starting to sicken me!! So ye, be much appreciated if you could review, strip out the bullshit and put down a sensible conclusion, cheers. Govvy (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Rocckker13

I'm sorry for the CU-block change - I suspect that when tagging the accounts using the SPI script, I accidentally reblocked them. I imagine I'll get a knock on the door from Arbcom's desysopping squad any minute now GAB^gab 15:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe one day I'll make as few mistakes as you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I can hang by my fingertips from the windowsill until the desysop squad leaves... GAB^gab 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Take a selfie or if you don't have enough limbs for that, ask a relative (who likes you) or a close friend to take the picture. Make sure they get a second picture if you fall. If you're a coward like me (and acrophobic), use a ground floor sill.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that, I'm going with the good ol' bedsheet escape rope. Maybe I can pull a Pierce Brosnan... GAB^gab 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Boy are you full of yourself - James Bond fantasies. Me I'm more the incompetent comic as in Lucille Ball in the Cornell Wilde episode of I Love Lucy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm nothing without my delusions of grandeur. Bond never would've gotten out of that Bilbao office if the table legs had been sturdier. GAB^gab 16:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

LTA

Not sure who fernandez Q was but SS4CUWiki just popped up in the registration logs... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the new account is operated by the same person?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it's the same person but certainly seems like an LTA given the CUWiki bit. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if they edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:IanDBeacon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hiya BB, This user is adding false notices on IPs and peoples talk pages, I noticed you gave a warning in July, but he/she seems up to no good again. Govvy (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the user added ANI notices too some IPs and some Users when there is no ANI to speak of, [10]. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI, a user @Juxlos: made a report in ANI and it states that you have to give notification to involved editors. He initially posted in WP:AIV but I removed the report. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If you were wondering, it was in regards to this - [[11]] IanDBeacon (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I put it in the wrong place, and he talkpaged me. Juxlos (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: Okay, maybe I got it wrong, I saw you add an ANI noticed to Flix11 with nothing on ANI then I saw a load of IPs that you added notices to in your contrib, so I thought you were up to no good, sorz. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Govvy and Bbb23, I have opened WP:ANI on this issue Hhkohh (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: and I have closed it. Kindly read my rationale there. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Usernamekiran I do not think we resolved it about spamming to Flix11 Hhkohh (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: If all other notices are accounted for, then the only remaining one cant be called as spamming. Assuming good faith, we can consider as a mistake, and assuming bad faith, we can consider it as malicious edit. In either case it was not right to take it to ANI, because ANI is for chronic cases. ie, if IanDBeacon does this after being warned a few times, or if he fails to communicate properly, then it should be taken to ANI. In this case Ian explained the edits on IP talkpages satisfactorily. We should give IanDBeacon an opportunity to explain his edits of Flix11. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith as Juxlos failed to notify the users and IPs he reported to WP:ANI per what the instructions say. IanDBeacon (talk)—

@IanDBeacon: hi. But why did you notify Flix11 when there is no discussion about them at the ANI? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPI – IP issue

• Macedonian referendum, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bbb23. An IP was blocked last night for edit warring at Macedonian referendum, 2018. The edit warring is now being continued by an account that is pretty obviously the same editor (they haven't denied it when challenged). Based on what it says at WP:SPI, a checkuser can't link an account to an IP, so not sure whether it's possible to report them for sockpuppetry. Cheers, Number 57 14:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You can report them to SPI if you wish. Any non-CheckUser can say that an IP and a named account are the same person. However, you may not get very quick action at SPI. I would either report it to AN3 or to EdJohnston who blocked the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for hijacking this thread. But, is the absence of quick action at SPI, (which, IMO, usually equates to the SPI being unattended by checkusers, unless staleness resumes or the IP is blocked by a non-CU on grounds of disruption or behavioural-sockpuppetry, itself) a carefully-crafted tactic to avoid stepping into the gray-zone of linking UserAccounts with IPs or is it due to the usual delay in attending lodged SPIs? ∯WBG^converse 15:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule, but often SPIs with one named account and nothing but IP(s) do not get as much attention from clerks. Usually, if you ignore it for a while, the IP stops editing, and the issue is moot. It's often not the best use of a clerk's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The disputed article, Macedonian referendum, 2018, is about a vote which will take place tomorrow, September 30. I've applied five days of extended-confirmed protection, which should limit any editing by suspected socks in the near future. I tried to make a judgment of sockpuppetry based on behavior but didn't reach any certainty. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone impersonating you?

User:Bbb282837 has copied your userpage and talk page into their own. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: Well it is a pretty picture, isn't it? Bye-bye "me". Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh my...

I clicked on his username from the result box at the top of my TP thinking I was going to his TP - no, actually I wasn't thinking - thank you for reverting my post and saving me further embarrassment. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on BLP page

You reverted an RfC that I placed on the BLP Talk page saying it doesn’t belong there. I don’t mind. But if not there, where? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If I understand what you're talking about, the best place would be at WP:BLPN. The BLP Talk page is for discussing the policy, not the application of the policy to a particular BLP article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just posted my RfC request there. I'll hope that is the right place. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 14:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn. You declined check user because you said the case was stale. One of the relevant accounts has been editing as recently as today. Is is stale because the other account hasn't edited since March? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to have at least two accounts to compare against. Here there is just DailyDip.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Is all of Louisiana done, since this editor is doing Texas now? Bbb, you ever read Hathorn's article? They are a miracle of fluff. Like sugarfree cotton candy. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks Bbb23. I have tracked down quite a few of our friend Billy's socks--often IPs--but have never filed an SPI until now. I'll try to do that in the future to make it easier to keep up with the cotton candy factory. Marquardtika (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A Sockpuppet claim was open by HandsomeBoy

I don't understand how to go about this and also I would like an IP check an also HandsomeBoy has always nominated my articles for deletion without a convincing reason or fact.. All articles I have written meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Please I need you to help me out with an IP Check up on this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obari2Kay#Suspected_sockpuppets, Thank You.--Timi422 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. IP checks are not done of an editor at their request to prove their innocence.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So can you check the investigation to see if am not violating Wikipedia rules, cause I honestly don't see where this Sockpuppet case is heading to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obari2Kay#Comments by other users. Thank You--Timi422 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Mansfield Wiki Page

Hello, I see that you reversed every edit that I have made on the Mansfield College page today without explanation. Please explain your actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTomAber (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You're a new editor and you have no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The material you added is generally unencyclopedic. It reads like a personal essay coupled with some WP:OR, despite the source. Also, don't call my edits "vandalism" again. Finally, if you want to add the material at this point, take it to the Talk page of the article and gain a consensus for your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What you did is clearly vandalism. First, removing 1.5k characters of text is not a minor edit. Second, I fail to see how my addition of Robert Adams, a notable philosopher, to the alumni list is 'unencyclopedic'. Third, if you have an issue with the paragraph that I have written on the history of Mansfield building, I would suggest that you edit it yourself to fit your standards instead of childishly removing every single edit that I had did that day.

The revert of Adams was a mistake. The other material should be discussed on the Talk page and the burden to do that is yours, not mine. Learn how to WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN your comments. Finally, Adams goes before Anderson.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you have admitted your mistake. I have moved Adams before Anderson. Concerning the talk page, I will be making several more edits later this week and will summarise my additions/revisions in the talk page when I am done. Sorry, but I am not obliged to indent my messages to make your talk page appear stylish and tidy.

Thomas Aberato — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTomAber (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Why did you remove my defence at the sockpuppet accusation? I tried to read the instructions and do what it said. I am requesting checkuser. Bolarno (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove your defense. It's all there. As the "accused", you're not permitted to request CU; that's the only thing I removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Tanya Ekanayaka Page

Hi Bbb23, WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk), why is the discography section irrelevant to a composer when details of published works by nearly all composers listed on Wikipedia are included on their Wikipedia pages??! You have deleted ALL this information despite it being referenced. Therefore I will undo it for now. Thank you. Also, see reference to subjects thesis and details of the music released - the subject has a PhD in Linguistics and Musicology. The subject is also the producer of the two solo CDs mentioned in the 'Career' section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You might want to revdel my last two edits to Oshwah's page, too.

I accidentally reverted the revert and then self-reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I finally got it - baby steps.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on the ball on that, and helping to cover my fuckup.

On a completely unrelated note... I think that FrogCast might warrant a CU, as they have claimed to have had a previous account, but refuses to disclose it. They've cited personal safety as a reason, but given that they did so by implying that Calton and I would do them harm (while insulting us for the fifth or sixth time), I don't think that's a legitimate concern. To be fair, I suspect this is a fairly young editor and that it's quite possible this is just a BS claim, but I figured just in case, maybe I should let a CU know about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if they had a previous account, but I can't find it. If you have any evidence of who they might be, that would of course help. My guess is they won't last very long after their current block expires. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to cover the base, if you will. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn they were lying. They strike me as quite young, and I agree with your prediction. One can't deny they have a passion for WP, though, so maybe after a few years of seasoning they'll come back with a much better attitude. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not even trying...

Screense is back again for the 2nd time (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ??? GAB^gab 01:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That one plus Nataliejanesellars1974 (talk · contribs · count) - and I'm not even familiar with that case. Time to go to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock farm

Hi Bbb23. I just blocked a half dozen socks that were attacking Head injury. It might be worth a look in case there are more. Head injury: Revision history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Administratively, with that many accounts, it would be better for you to file a report and request a CU to look for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/우흥우흥따악. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Richmond Art Collective

Do you realize you just deleted the first article of an editthon? As an experienced editor I would expect that you would have tagged it first & waited a respectful amount of time for a response. https://www.facebook.com/events/254766412011335?name=Spokane+Futures%3A+A+Wikipedia+Edit-a-thon&event_id=254766412011335&view=permalink&id=287602178727758&acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2229%22%2C%22ref_notif_type%22%3A%22admin_plan_mall_activity%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&notif_id=1538850595072385&notif_t=admin_plan_mall_activity&ref=notif

Posting from my iPhone. Peaceray (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It was already tagged - and correctly.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Was there ample time to respond to the tag? This editathon started just over three hours ago. WP:BITE certainly applies here. I request reinstatement of the article for at least 24 hours so the speedy deletion can be contested. Peaceray (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Meaning?

Hi there Bbb23. What does this exactly mean?[12] Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Would you please take a look at this SPI? Accused party is running amok, and new accounts are performing CU tasks. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"running amok" - that's a bit melodramatic isn't it? And I don't see what the case has to do with the SPI vandal. You already pinged me earlier; there was no need to post to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

lol. I apologise for using the word, I couldnt think of any other word at that time (english is not my first language). Also, sorry about the post here, I thought you missed my earlier ping. I always imagine that busy users who interact with others a lot (like you) get a lot pings/notifications everyday. I get them only when bots post to my talkpage :-/
—usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Civ

Hello,

Just a sidenote: when you write summaries like "very poor English" you actually offend someone. Maybe you didn't realise. I am sure you follow WP:CIV by heart and this has been just a minor accident. --grin ✎ 08:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't provide a diff so I can see the context, but I doubt it was accidental, and, generally, such a comment in an edit summary is not uncivil. Competence in English is a requirement to edit here. Nor is it offensive. If I wrote something in, say, Spanish, I wouldn't be offended if someone said my Spanish was poor. It is. Now if someone said my English was poor, I might be slightly miffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95

I am shocked by revelation that Hornetzilla78, PythonDan, Kirlator and SamaranEmerald are the same user, this gives some hindsight to me and you should notify NeiN about that. I admit I was harsh and broke rules, though my first ban was about "unreliable sources" which Hornetzilla78 and his sockets reported and was the theme against me. Later on he usedmy permabanning to remove reliable sources. So I was targeted by socketer and got trolled hard to the point of rage and desperation, he manufactured consent and deceived people to further owns views while projecting on me. He basically acted like he owned Hwasong-15 article yet accused me of that while he made edits with multiple accounts when he made reports against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened to User:Web SourceContent?

Hello Bbb23. I just want to clarify why you blocked User:Web SourceContent as sock of User:Daciproteasa09? As per comment, the Web SourceContent is likely sock, but is unrelated to User:Daciproteasa09. That this account was created in 2016 on English Wikipedia and another different account has also been created on Ro.Wikipedia beggining July 2014. Thanks! 37.54.249.32 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I expect an answer......

.....immediately. I was told I do not understand what Administrators do here. But I do know for a fact their role is not to issue naked threats without even bothering to give a reason. This looks an awful lot like I am being silenced for daring to highlight another Administrator's fitness to be an Administrator. Pending your explanation, I will have to proceed as if this is what it is. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I expect you to be blocked as a sock well before that explanation comes along, based on your contribs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, we must be in the same boat then, waiting on our betters to furnish us with explanations. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - obligatory notice as our SPA friend failed to provide it power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Banned from a page without due process (not at /Incidents). General Ization ^Talk 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, if I wanted to make a frivolous complaint, that's where I'd go. O3000 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The OP is now indeffed. General Ization ^Talk

• When I went off-wiki to have some dinner and watch a great British mystery on TV, I figured our friend had a few options, one of which was to go to ANI (or AN) and complain about my warning. Of all the options, I liked that one best because it meant some other admin (smarter than I) would block the user. Trolls are so predictable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rope has its value. O3000 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I was just curious what was the great British mystery you were watching. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

An episode of New Tricks, hardly a classic whodunit, but more than just a procedural police drama (Wikipedia's classification). The show had a significant amount of humor in it, although it unfortunately declined over the long course of the series. Many of the early episodes are hilarious.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There's loads of contemporary classics. The Mystery of the Missing Millions, by T. May and starring D. U. Pee? Or perhaps The Great Train Robbery by C. Grayling, starring D. F. Tee... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I do like New Tricks, I was always partial to Agatha Christie's Poirot myself. :) Govvy (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit impartial to Life on Mars myself, although I don't think we should pick Gene Hunt as a role model for admins. "I wanna unblock request!" "I wanna hump Britt Ekland, what we gonna do?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

heh, @Ritchie333: Stalking my contrib?? Govvy (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Stalking? Personally, I couldn't give a tart's furry cup if half your brains are falling out. Don't ever waltz into my kingdom playing king of the jungle. Gene Hunt 333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Er, had to put my glasses on to read that! @Ritchie333: Hmm, was that suppose to be a modified quote from Life on Mars? And if we are on Bbb23's talk page aren't we in his kingdom?? Also my brains fell out long ago!! Govvy (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wait until Martinevans123 sets up shop on your talk page, you'll get this on a daily basis. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC) .... my brains didn't just fall out but also got run over by a passing steamroller, as you can probably tell....

UK sock

Hi. A new user smell like a UK sock. Can you maybe run a CU on them to see if anything shows up? Thanks. 183.171.113.225 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't move all of it

You moved all of the AMES cases to Osourdounmu. Only the latest batch were Osourdounmu socks. The earlier ones-- the Ljubljana IP and Xhfgwhatever, were AMES. Can they be moved back? Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I want it to remain as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Um why? These are sets of socks of two different masters. As I'm sure Ktrimi991 and Ivanvector can affirm. --Calthinus (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I can affirm that when Bbb23 says "I want this left how it is" I leave it how it is. I have for a long time suspected that AMES was not that user's first account, for what it's worth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: All of us suspected that AMES had prior experiences on Wikipedia but the connection with Osourdounmu came as a surprise. To clarify, if an account similar to AMES appears in the future, the report should be filed with Osourdounmu as sockmaster? Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector -- oh, I didn't realize AMES and Osourdounmou were the same, but this does explain a lot of things. --Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock from a year ago - query

On September 6, 2017, you changed the block on Wikigirl97 to a checkuser block. I came across the editor's work on one of her creations, Atherton House, which needed quite a bit of work, and I see that in less than a month they created several articles, of which the majority, on NRHP properties in California, survive and for the most part need even more work. Can you tell me whether she was a sock of anyone else whose article creations also need to be checked and fixed? It's possible that this sock had their own specific focus different from that of the sockmaster, or that the person's other work has been adequately checked and fixed up, but in case it hasn't ... Yngvadottir (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you look at their userpage, you can see who the master is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I must have been tired ... but that's weird. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested sock user bookworm8899 is back

The new account named 748920A45483 seems to be a sock of Bookworm8899 or gutmeister. He edits only tai-related topics and included fringe material without scientific references or change the meanings of sourced sentences. Could you please check him out? Thanks. 212.95.8.171 (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was right in the first place...

Thank you for removing the ANI discussion and for appending the block to 86.152.81.16. Unfortunately, like I said on the IP's talk page, I got distracted and wasn't able to fully look into things. I appreciate you for doing so while I was peeled away. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That was one remarkable block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

DENY

Absolutely it is. But reverting admins is your department, not mine. Re: what one might describe as career augmentation; although I do not understand why they were engaged in conversation in the first place. ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. I just went a step further.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Very much in the style of Crocodile Dundee though..."That's not a DENY. This is a DENY!" Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

...but I came across this, and noticed that the account you mentioned is editing again: [13]. I don't know if it's a serious infraction or not, but I thought you might want to know. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone who actually reads what I say! Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Crispgatoglitz

Hi Bbb23. Not sure what to make of this. Could you take a look at it? I don't think it's a case of SOCK or EVADE, and it most likely wouldn't be considered NLT. Maybe the removing of that particular content could be justified per BLP, but again not sure why a new account would show up out of the blue to do something like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to update: the content removal was reverted by another editor. It does still seem a bit odd that a new account would show up out of the blue to do something like that. Perhaps there's something going off-Wiki between these two people (assuming they are not the same person). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

They are the same person. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I guess they were trying to play WP:HAND to gain some credibility. Doing so seems pointless to me, but then again it's a fine line between stupid and clever.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bkleinberg block appeal

Hi Bbb23, you blocked User:Bkleinberg in September for sockpuppetry. The user has now submitted a non-frivolous block appeal. Would you mind sharing your comments at User talk:Bkleinberg? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unwilling to unblock the user. I find his unblock request inadequate in several ways. First, he denied any socking on September 22. Then he changes his mind two days later based supposedly on a review of policies and guidelines (this user is not a newbie). Now he says it's just an innocent family project, mentioning his sister and his father. He never expressly discloses the accounts he used, but there are five, including the master account, that we know about. I count three family members. Why the other two accounts? It doesn't take a policy wonk to know that using multiple accounts to work on the same articles is problematic. Despite the relatively low number of edits of the accounts, they have intersected on nine pages, including articles they authored. He's going to have to be a helluva lot more truthful and forthcoming before I would consider unblocking, and given the two unblock requests he's made, it would have to be at least six months after his having done that, meaning the clock doesn't start ticking until then.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Kick van der Vall

Hello Bbb23, on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer) there's a request for an article about the former Dutch soccer player Kick van der Vall. Since I know a bit about him, I was all set to make that page (using the Dutch page for help) but then I found out that you deleted the same page in the past. Does this mean there's no longer a need for this page and I should just leave it? Dutchy45 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was created by a sock. If you think the person is sufficiently notable, you can recreate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Double-check

Hi B, I indeffed CorrectHai as a ducky sock of Dimpletisha, based on my knowledge of GracyM. CorrectHai is denying sockpuppetry, proclaiming their innocence as a brand new editor. CorrectHai has 17 articles of intersection with GracyM, especially at Bepannah, a frequent haunt of GracyM's. Also a considering factor, 8 edits in, this "brand new editor" reverts three of Barunology2's edits at Barun Sobti. How does this brand new user know that there's a problem with the article in need of reversion? Any chance you can look into this? I strongly do not believe that this person is a brand new editor, but if I'm wrong about their link to Dimpletisha, I kind of want to know that. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There were also a couple of IP edits that were strange, like this Punjabi IPv6 editing (Hindi-language) Bepannah. The edit introduced obnoxious language about "great reviews", which was resubmitted by CorrectHai. Also at this article, which is mostly socks of Dimpletisha, there's this edit from a Punjabi IPv6. Obviously you can't comment on those, but these are some of the things that sold me on socking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

CorrectHai is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and for the confirmation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Surprise, a Punjabi IP reverted all of my recent reversions of Dimpletisha. I handled it, but just thought I'd mention it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi B, this user is again editing while logged out. Any chance for a range block, or not possible? ABCD20 miiiight be a sock, but I don't have enough info yet. They removed Star Parivaar awards from an article, which is something Dimpletisha (correctly) did. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hard for me to do range blocks when you and I are going back and forth about this stuff. However, ABCD20 and TellyFam (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "when you and I are going back and forth about this stuff". Am I bothering you? If there's something I could do to make this process easier, please let me know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. I meant that it comes too close to me connecting an IP with a named account, a violation of policy, were I to block an IP range.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh, I understand. But then there's this other side of me that goes, "Does B see these other IPs? Will he do anything with them in a timely manner or is it totally off his radar?" There's a good deal of frustration on my side for all the games we have to play to shield these people especially when we're protecting the IPs of socks who don't even protect themselves. Like, it's totally obvious that some IPs are the guy we just blocked. Sometimes, they even admit it. If someone self-identifies an IP they've used, can't that then be considered fair game for CU confirmation? Also, isn't there any way to get bots to do some of the CU dirty work? Like, couldn't some information be plugged in somewhere, and bots could scour through new accounts or IP edits and figure out if X, Y, Z data matches a profile, which would then report to CUs? Or even AUTOBLOCK them?! I swear, I searched for a kitchen table back in 2008 and ever since then, every computer I use somehow knows to send me ads for a kitchen table. (Truth: kitchen table is code for something sex-related.) Anyway, there's got to be a way to get automation working in our favor here. I'll keep your 'chill with the back and forth' in mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Glow Pow is a prime candidate. Lots of intersections. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Your wish is my command, O Great One.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Lyhendi block

Based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyhendi/Archive, could you block Lyhends, Special:Contributions/Lyhends? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Same for Special:Contributions/Lyhendj and Special:Contributions/Lyhendo, perhaps to prevent future disruption, Special:Contributions/Lyhende? WikiHannibal (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the three accounts with contributions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Khalil Chahine

I see you declined my speedy deletion nomination for Khalil Chahine. Please could you remove the links to the French and German Wikipedias present in the article because they refer to a different person. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I just found an user is vandalizing the article Template:2012–13 Premier League table (constantly disrupt normal edit), could you warn this guy? User: 七战功成 01:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23, here? ——SerialNumber54129 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No sleeper check

I'm wonderful, eh? Well, thank you. You're wonderful too. :)

So, why no sleeper check when a sock says he has more accounts?

Best wishes,

Wonderful Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Users often say they have more accounts, and surprise, surprise, they are often lying. That said, in this particular case, any other accounts had had already been blocked anyway. I saw no reason to make a public record of it (see WP:DENY).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Very well, my friend. I didn't know about any other accounts. And I am a big fan of DENY. I even use it off Wikipedia when asked for charity donations, spare change, even holding elevator doors. It's magic! :) I kid. I kid. :) Anyhow, understood. Many thanks for the good guidance, as usual. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Socking

I see that [14] this user is blocked as a sockpuppet of Shobair2012. I think that user Mehranimanesh may also be a sock and you might like to consider the status of the articles Richard Nephew and The Art of Sanctions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of WorldCreatorFighter again October 2018

The account Tomurtogo seems to be a sock of WorldCreaterFighter. He edits Altaic/japanese/korean/turkic topics (example:[15]) and fringe genetics about Haplogroups. It seems as he hide his interests with edist some edits about japanese actors. His userpage looks also similar to some socks, claiming to be half-turkish half korean/japanese. Could you please check him out? Thanks. 212.95.8.226 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Help about Deleted page Ubong King

Greetings, Please i need help to understand why the page was deleted, any issues raised earlier were already sorted and there are good cited sources for the subject and i still can't tell why it was deleted. Please any explanation will be helpful as we keep learning. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is "we"?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that generalization, I am still learning and hope to learn from every situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: You deleted it twice last month per G11 and G12. I don't think the latest iteration is much of an improvement. It's still obviously promotional, and although it's not a G12, it still uses text from the blog website. I also don't think it gets past a7, although I'm not at all conversant with Nigerian sources, so that's a less easy call. I'll restore it if you think it's good enough to keep, or I could move it to draft space and tell the creator to go through WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, please in case there are areas you both feel needs correction, I will greatly appreciate it if you can highlight them and also have the page in draft so i can make the necessary corrections as required. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! Please I still look forward to a positive response concerning the issue raised here while appreciating you in anticipation for your review of this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Draft:Ubong King. Please do not move the draft into article space. Instead, submit the article through WP:AFC. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance in moving the article to draft. I have effected some changes in the article and will be grateful if you can help with a review of the article and if there are aspects in particular that needs to be corrected please let me know so I can correct it. I appreciate your kindness and it is helping me learn better and becoming better at making contributions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delords (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if you submit the draft through WP:AFC, other experienced editors will help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OpenID

Hi. As the page OpenID is a mess and full of inaccurate/untrue/irrelevant/unverifiable information, I started to fix the page by trimming etc., but you reverted it. (I actually was in the process of moving things around...)

To start with, OpenID is not a decentralized authentication protocol. It is a mark that is used to IPR protect the series of specifications created by OpenID Foundation Working Groups.

Even if it is meant to be an acronym for OpenID Connect or OpenID Authentication 2.0, it is an identity federation protocol that relays the result of user authentication from one site to another among other claims and not user authentication per se (despite its name in the case of OpenID Authentication 2.0). If you talk about "user authentication" protocol, then it is something like FIDO 2.0.

So, the first line is inaccurate, unfortunately.

Subsequent paragraphs also are full of problems. They can and ought to be greatly simplified. --Sommermann (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

UK sock again?

A recent user smells like a UK sock, that sounds like a duck. 183.171.115.161 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Another note. I beleive you blocked another IP that I believe was actually making constructive edits at the same time the vandal was at work. Or at least that's what it seems. funplussmart (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Miriam

Which sources are unreliable? If you really cared about reliability, you'd find that the citations and information used in the previous article come from sources that directly contradict Miriam's interviews in the sources I provided. What's unencyclopedic about it? If you find some sources to be false, take only that information away. You're just rejecting the whole thing because you disagree with it. The previous article provides almost no factual, historical documentation whatsoever. Promoting is advertising. I'm not advertising a dead person. I'm providing a much more detailed description of someone's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredCravens (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The unreliable sources are findagrave.com (it can be used in the External links section but not as a source in the body), IMDb, ebooksread.com, filmsofthegoldenage.com, and www.westernclippings.com. The style you use is not in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. It is promotional. It's casual. It's overly detailed. There are many examples of poor style. Don't call her Miriam. Last names should be used. You're adding far too much material for me to go through and remove pieces of it or even improve it. As I already said, the sourcing is so bad, I'd have very little to go on. You're new here. I'm not sure why you want to promote Seegar's life, but if you want to edit the article, you're going to have to go to the article Talk page and propose changes to the article, and gain a clear WP:CONSENSUS for your changes before making those changes. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked from editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not promoting. I'm trying to create an article for people to go to who want to learn about miriam seegar's life. With the previous article, you learn very little. Compare this to more famous individuals' articles, how are theirs not too detailed, having 80% more content than my article? Like I told the last admin, I'm in the works of creating it. For 2 days now. I was going to make more detailed changes like referring to first name and last name, hyperlinking, etc. in the following days. I know the writing is far from perfect.

If IMDB and newspaper articles aren't reliable sources, what are? You just told me every source I cited was unreliable, so rather than reading page upon page of Wikipedia information to try to learn what's acceptable sourcing and what's not, I'm going to assume you're being disingenuous in telling me that every single one of my sources are unreliable.

As of right now, I'm going to add pieces of information one at a time, because that's what wikipedia is all about, right? This article is a piece of shit with very little information, and I'm going to add information to it so that people who want to read about her on the best encyclopedia online can without reading 10 different sources from 20 pages on google.

Please learn how to WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN your posts. Reliable sources are generally reputable newspapers, e.g., The Los Angeles Times, which is cited in the article, books published by reputable publishing companies and authors, and other periodicals that are clearly fact-checked by responsible journalists. They are not blogs, and they are not websites like filmsofthegoldenage.com, which have no About section and no indication that it is anything but people telling fluffy stories about actors. Your latest small addition is sourced to that website; you should remove it until you can find a reliable source for the information, which, by the way, is largely trivia anyway. What I asked you to do was not just make smaller changes, but propose them on the article Talk page first; you didn't do that. As for the "last admin", I assume you're referring to HickoryOughtShirt?4. They are an experienced editor, but they are not an administrator. And don't assume I'm being "disingenuous"; whatever I say here is from very long experience as an editor and an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

AkoyIanS

Regarding potential Bertrand101 sockpuppets, it seems like we caught a false positive here. @AkoyIanS: is a well-established user and doesn't appear to be similar in behaviour to Bert in terms of editing style and communication towards other users; Bert is generally uncooperative towards other editors and doesn't appear to respond to warnings of any sort. From what it seems, he might have been caught in the proverbial crossfire assuming he happened to be on the same range as what Bert is currently using. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I never said he was a sock of Bertrand101. He is, however, a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and boy with extreme hate

This guy User:Glory2Suriname has posted exactly (point2point) same edit as User:Damien2016. Here; Glory's edit [16] and Damien's edit [17]. Please revert the change by this racist person.

This sockpuppet is known Dalit hater who also considers Adivasi (aborigines) as a lowly group. He thinks if Dalits and Adivasi are associated with the target group (i.e. Khas, Chhetri), the target group may show a dislike. In posting upsetting things against Kshettri, multiple times he puts up photo of Dalit leader Dinanath Bhaskar and Chinese people showing his own ethnic hatred against all three.[18] [19] Against Bahun, he puts up a photo of Adivasi (Aborigines of South Asia) also considering Adivasi as a lowly group and instigating hatred against Bahun/Brahmin group.[20] Thus, he considers both as the lowly groups showing the attitude of tyrant Hindus. Also, he wrote Khas means a swear word. Here:[21] He hates Khas people, Chhetri and Bahun.

User:Damien2016 has been confirmed sockpuppet of User:Burbak and Burbak has following suspected sockpuppets:[22] One of the sockpuppets showed hatred against Yadavs here:[23]

In future, he may bring another account to show hatred against Khas people, Chhetri, Bahun, Yadav, Dalit and Adivasi. He is a major threat to ethnic harmony in Nepal and Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.214 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is another of his sock puppet account Gandhawaria_Rajput which has already been banned indefinitely. Please look into it. Yajmir (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock article creations

Hi, you blocked Michael Curnow (talk · contribs) as part of a sockfarm earlier today. Among their contributions was the creation of Caste conflict in Bihar, which has not been substantially edited by others. It doesn't "read right" to me but I do not have the time to check all of the sources. Given that the farm has been pushing a POV on Bihar-related caste matters, what do we do about it? I don't think CSD G5 applies because they're blocked now but you indicated that it was not possible to tie them into the Burbak sockfarm due to things being stale. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent SpacemanSpiff or some other administrator familiar with the Burbak case to tag the blocked accounts as suspected puppets. If that's done, articles can be G5ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Someone has tagged it anyway but I'm unsure that they have actually understood G5. Will see what happens. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Catcreekcitycouncil

I've noticed that you've closed several of the most recent SPI's into Catcreekcitycouncil's sockpuppets with general "already blocked" close reasons. Most of the accounts are indeed blocked quickly by AIV, and normally I'd just leave it at that (WP:RBI is usually best in these cases), but this particular user has proven to be prolific with his account creation and has been shown to operate a number of autoconfirmed sleepers, sometimes letting them sit for months at a time before using them. Additionally, when CheckUser has been run, we've been able to catch a number of them before they're used, as seen here, here, here, and elsewhere in the SPI archive. Generally, I feel like taking care of these quietly would be preferable to brute force solutions like 30/500 (even it has proven to be ineffective, since they just find another article on a small town in that area and vandalize it instead). Is there any specific reason why doing a full SPI with CheckUser is a bad idea in these cases? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

When I decline a CU request or close a case with a CU request, I have reasons. I am not always at liberty to say what those reasons are. In the future, it would be easier if you would ask me near the time that I do it. I have no wish to go through previous denials/closures that happened as long ago as 2+ years. It's not a good expenditure of my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The SPI I opened was closed by you less than a week ago, and hasn't even been archived yet. I was referring to older SPIs to show how CheckUser had been previously been used to uncover as of yet unused sleepers and block them preemptively. I'm not saying you didn't have reasons to do what you did, I'm simply wondering why you opted to just close the most recent SPI without checking. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, look at a couple of the listed blocked socks, who blocked them, and what kind of blocks they were. That should help you understand why I said a check was unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

User:49.151.155.232

Hi,

Is the stuff he posted on the user talk pages copyrighted? It gets hits on Google, but I have no idea what it is. Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Itskumudhk sock

Hi Bbb23, I just happen to read an openly admitted message from a sock of Itskumudhk (talk · contribs). I am not sure if it warrants a block since they have just one edit. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not just one edit, but one edit over a year ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Which sock is the master?

Hi B, I'm looking at this guy. He's recreated a bunch of articles to turn them back into redirects to various Bigg Boss seasons. He's surely a sock of someone. In some of these histories like here and here, I see a number of socks:

• Ctrl A is a sock of AdnanAliAfzal (appears to be older potential sockmaster)
• AAS-786 is a sock of AdnanAliAfzal
• ShivashishSingh112 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
• RohitSingh665 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
• VarunKhurana326 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
• ShivashishSingh112 is a sock of KaranSharma0445
• RohitSingh665 is a sock of KaranSharma0445

Can you bring any clarity to this? Do you suppose they all socks of AdnanAliAfzal, or should I treat it more behaviorally and just attribute to KaranSharma0445? Some other option? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize the account was already listed at the SPI. Anyway, I confirmed that account plus one other and updated the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On WP:SO (User:Northatlantic320)

I think WP:SO is a standard policy, and I was assuming there was a chance, however slim, that he could apply. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's an essay, and it's often not extended even as a possibility, but if it is, it's usually done by an administrator. In this particular case, I don't think any encouragement should be given to the user. They aren't even admitting they socked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about latest Shingling334 sock IP

Hi Bbb23, thanks for blocking Personification123 in that last Shingling334 case. A couple of questions about 208.167.239.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I'm not sure whether it's now considered confirmed as a Shingling sock? They got a bunch of edits in that I'd like to revert on the basis of block evasion, is that ok? Can I put a {{IPsock|Shingling334|confirmed| blocked=yes}} on the IP's page - or is that not helpful? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) no, you can't put that template on the IP's page, checkusers do not confirm accounts to IP addresses. The IP is blocked because it's a range used by a webhost provider (see WP:NOP). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok... I guess I was expecting the IP I reported would be confirmed as a sock, or not, behaviorally. I didn't ask for a checkuser... What is the situation now, can I clean up the IP's recent edits based on WP:BLOCKEVASION? --IamNotU (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say you should probably evaluate the edits and revert if they're unconstructive. Behaviourally, it seems likely that there are edits by Shingling334 on the range, and others that are not Shingling334. As an open webhost it may have been used by many different editors. If you're going to revert, you should be able to defend your reverts, that's all. I haven't checked this case myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. There are others on that range, but 208.167.239.177 I'm sure is all Shingling - I'm very familiar with him - so I will "rv sock" them. I don't think he should be allowed to edit even if constructive (WP:BMB). But I'll be careful and look at each one... --IamNotU (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have you undone my contribution

Hi there

Today, I added a photo of my Pakistani visa to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_passport_stamps_by_country_or_territory My question is why you decided to remove it from there.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton kistol (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anton kistol: It's not that Bbb23 didn't appreciate your contribution; it's just that you were potentially giving away your personal information in a public place. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please restore User:Rasathus/sandbox

Please can you restore my "Duplicate" sandbox page. Although maybe not obvious from the edit history, but it contained a number of edits I was working on for the original article. Being my first attempt at editing I didn't want to risk impacting the original page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasathus (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Copying the entire article into your userspace to make test edits rather than making them directly to the article is not the best way to go about what you want to achieve. Make your edits to the article directly, but don't make them all at once. Do them in very small pieces, use "Show preview" a lot to make sure each edit looks okay, look at the finished product after you saved it, and then wait a day to see if anyone challenges your edit. If your edit(s) are challenged, go to the article Talk page and discuss it; don't insist on your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How do I restore my lost edits so that I can do so ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasathus (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it. First, there was no edit history to your sandbox. You simply created it in one edit. Second, you've already made a couple of edits directly to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My Clerk request

So is my clerk request just going to stay there, unanswered, or are extra clerks unneeded? I don't mean to be rude, I just want a genuine answer.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you look at other requests to become a clerk, you should readily see that many are not answered. If that bothers you, remove your request.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interests / Vandalism

Hi, I was just going through Some of Indian Films Articles, I just noticed about Tu Maza Jeev The page is written and portrayed in Advertising format, I was thinking to put Advert Tag but before out of curiosity thought to check logs, after scanning it, I have noticed User Tiven2240 is more concerned and interested in editing and keeping this article as he wrote! Looking at its edit pattern & logs, Its noticed that the Image had been deleted by 'CommonsDelinker Bot' prevously, also this page has been Nominated for deletion twice . Also this page has been marked for {Notability},{POV},{Advert}, which has been reverted or deleted without explanation by Same user. It seems he have Rollback Rights and he is misusing same. After doing detailed research about film and IMDB link given in page I found, that his name is included in credits social media marketing manager. I think this user deserve to be Ban Immediately for Vandalism & such commercial interests and this page should be removed on top priority. I think it need to be verified and take action. (Diego Rogger (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC))

Another sock

Special:Contributions/The_US_education_system_is_flawed. this one has popped up now. Is an IP block possible? Home Lander (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing IP

2.51.188.131, 2.51.23.233, 2.51.189.106, 2.51.187.71, 2.51.20.58 - These dynamic IP user has all the qualities of a POV pushing experienced user once blocked indefinitely and now editing in IPs. 137.97.131.180 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is most probably Rush922 logged out editing and they have intersecting edits in some common articles of interest. Please check this user. 137.97.42.54 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

More potential socks of Bertrand101

Hi I have come across quite a few potential socks of the above user who seem to be editing on the same kind of subjects, notably

• Myrabert01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NTV2K17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Federicparedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rapcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are editing radio stations and malls in the Philipines. This seems to be a special case due to the long term abuse. Should I just open a nex SPI case or is there something else to be done? Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have evidence that these accounts are tied to Bertrand101 (dubious), you can file a new report, but it has to be more than just the same topic area. If you have evidence that ties these accounts to each other, then you can file a new case with the oldest of the group as the master. Again, there must be diffs showing similar behavior not just topic overlap.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of them do have issues with their editing, but I'm afraid none of them match Bertrand's behaviour. Myrabert for one added userboxes to his/her userpage, which Bertrand would not do so far. Just because these guys edit Philippine radio station pages doesn't necessarily qualify them as B101 sock accounts. @WayKurat: should be able to school you through that guy since he's more experienced with these LTA cases. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice both of you. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Edit I made with one of the malls of SM is based on personal knowledge and I have photos uploaded on Wikimedia.NTV2K17 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not connected with B101 or other Sock Accounts here. The Edit I made with malls are verified by personal knowledge.NTV2K17 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Granted, original research is discouraged here as claims should be cited from reliable publications and not just from what you can attest, but if anything, the fact that you responded to claims rather than just leave a cryptic or incoherent blurb about another one of those phony radio stations is more than enough evidence that you're not Bertrand. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusion on deletion

I’m sorry to bother you... but I’m just confused about the deletion of my page, how is it vandalism in any way ?.... SneezyReus (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SneezyReus: It was either something you made up yourself or else something so obscure and little known that I was unable to find any mention of it anywhere else. Either way, it did not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims only to have articles about subjects which have received substantial coverage in reliable published sources, not about things which are almost totally unknown. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: But, how is it in any way vandalism ?... Please explain —SneezyReus (talk)

How did you do that?

I had just filed a report at ANI over this account [24]. Are you at liberty to comment? And thank you from 99. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't even see your report. The blocked account is now tagged, so you can see some history if you're morbidly curious. Best as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

SirEdimon

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm required to notify you - but just in case, I opened a discussion about unblocking at AN here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#SO_Request_for_SirEdimon. SQL^{Query me!} 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: Probably not required, but definitely considerate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lewis 36

I see that you've requested Clerk assistance on this SPI case; Do you need me to do anything with this? I'm realise that the report was rather conventional - when I initially tried to raise it, Twinkle barfed; I assume that was because the site in question had been blacklisted. I didn't want risk raising multiple cases trying to fix it, so I described the problem rather than providing diffs; I'm sorry if the report I sent isn't up to scratch, I'd be happy to add diffs to the investigations page if you require them, since another editor let me know that I can use nowiki tags to avoid the blacklist problems. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I see it's all been handled by the inestimable Ivanvector.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks and/or apologies as appropriate - I'm developing my 'how things work around here' knowledge, will try to learn from each mistake. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Section header

Hey, on this, I removed the header since he said he did it to aide the archive bot, which removed one decline yesterday so I was trying to prevent that going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

He made two edits. First, he increased the time between archiving, and, second, he added the section header. The second does nothing except to make it easier to edit. How does removing the section header accomplish anything? I'm not an archiving expert, so maybe I'm missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw the first edit, I just took the edit summary at its word that it would cause the bot to be able to archive it in a week, which isn’t great for future reviewing admins, not a big deal, but that was my thought process. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

His change to a week was from 7 hours, which was an improvement, but, as you said, not enough. Archiving on sock talk pages has always been a problem. I don't believe there's any rule on it. Personally, I think archiving should be removed. If the user is unblocked in the future, they can always reinstate archiving if they wish. Sometimes I just do it, and sometimes I don't - don't ask why. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible HughD sock

Over at AR-15 style rifle an IP put up some edits that are apparently similar to that of HughD - I prefer to WP:AGF rather than biting IP editors on a suspicion, but it might be worth a peak. Not opening an SPI because it's not my suspicion, it's that of another editor on the page, and I know there are technical restrictions on checkuser data with IP editors - but if you can work any of you Sock Puppetry Investigation magic it'd probably be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) obviously the same user. The range is enormous, but I blocked the IP for a few days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Much obliged. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Osourdounmou

Thanks for checking the accounts connected with Osourdounmou. The two accounts you blocked a few minutes ago and two others (Tschir and Amarakuja) were blocked today on sqwiki/Albanian Wikipedia as socks of Goelia (whose editing history shows the same obsession with renaming Albanian and Ottoman articles and editing Albanian religious sites articles as that of Osourdounmou. Both of them are linked with Germany). Might a rangeblock or sth other to prevent Osourdounmou from creating more accounts be needed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess a lack of response means "No". Thanks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I always have a little trouble answering these kinds of questions. I, like most CheckUsers when we run a check, generally take all reasonable steps to prevent further disruption. I know that's a bit vague, but it's the best I can comfortably tell you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I understand the situation and I greatly appreciate your work on Wikipedia. Thanks again . Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the English page "Webmasters Europe"

But it exists in German, does Wikipedia have different rules for different languages?

Why do you think it does not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject"?

Are standardized tests for web designers and developers unimportant?! https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webmasters_Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheerhuwaish (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, each language's wiki has its own policies. On the English wiki we've been plagued with advertising over the years and we take a strong stand against it. Articles need to be supported by reliable, verifiable, independent. All the sources in your article were from, or closely related to, the business. The lack of any such sources, the business' failure to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:NCORP, the abundance of links to the company's website are compelling reasons to delete the article.

"standardized tests for web designers and developers" may be important. That doesn't mean that this business is.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. A sock you blocked a few months ago appears to have returned. It seems to be near DUCK territory to me but the SPI has went without response for over a week while the accounts are actively editing. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

My article was be deleted in sandbox

Hi Bbb23, It seems that I was identified as “Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host".12:21, 26 October 2018 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Acwwqq1/sandbox (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank) Firstly, I am a student and this is my assignment for this semester. Wikipedia's users had deleted my article three times.I am very angry even I don't know what I should say now. I tried to re-edit lots of times and proofread my article. However, How did you do it? You did not hesitate to delete my article.IT IS VERY HARD TO WRITE DO YOU KNOW??? IT SPENT A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME!!! I am not an person who use English as first language. Creating a article is very difficult for me. I mean I need encourage when I writing rather than delete without a reasonable reason. I admit that the article I wrote before is not very good, but I tried to correct the issue that pointed out. Here is a question is that is it right to write an assignment in my Sandbox rather than move to draft or other places? Please restore my article.

TonyAcwwqq1 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000

Please explain to me the rationale for your closing this investigation with no action. Had this been any other puppeteer and his meatpuppet they would have been facing lengthy blocks, and that ignores the fact that the puppetmaster has been caught in two obvious lies in trying to cover his ass. Your decision is, to put it mildly, odd. Pyrope 14:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I already read your unnecessarily vitriolic comment at the SPI. Please don't add to it in other venues (like here). I believe my decision is reasonable based on all the circumstances. Let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think my request here was polite. I am asking for your policy-based justification for taking no action against blatant behaviour that would have earned most editors a significant block. I will let it go once you have explained. Pyrope 14:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your request here was polite. Your vitriol was directed at the user, both at SPI and here. You're going to have to let it go on my Talk page (and at the SPI) because I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Conflicts of Interests / Vandalism (Paid Advocacy)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Conflicts of Interests / Vandalism (Paid Advocacy). For one of the SPI you have been involved. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 11:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please check that out, Bbb23. It's the same sockmaster that has been harassing Tiven2240. Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Boing Said Zebedee blocked the user as an obvious sock, but you might want to take a look at the thread anyway. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, I remember now what I was thinking of: You don't read your wiki email, or at least you never answer it, right? So that's what I was dimly aware of. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's more complicated than that. Without going into all the details, users shouldn't expect that I will reply to their e-mail by e-mail (I sometimes reply on their Talk pages).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

restored article

I am supposed to let you know that I restored Transport Matters Party earlier today. You speedy deleted it earlier in the year. I have restored it and I and several other editors have hopefully addressed its relevance as a minor party that is registered and will (probably) field candidates at next month's election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:X027

I got a gut feeling this might be a sock, Govvy (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hiya Bbb23, I just got a message on my talk page from a User:ANUCH6F, I am a 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of X027, cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Homealone1990

Thanks for laundering the Homealone1990 socks. I never file SPIs because the process is too difficult. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

KingOfTheForest24

Hi Bbb23. I don't have a strong conviction on this one. But their short contrib log suggests they have been around before. Unfortunately, if they are a sock I have no clue who the master is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Homealone1990 sock

Another sock of Homealone1990 has turned up. Where do I report this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Block status of Cirt

Jytdog asked a rhetorical question about the block status of Cirt at AN: "why is Cirt not indefinitely blocked, and why is there nothing in their block log or user page showing the egregious socking even to the point of going to AE? (I just checked their global contribs and they've edited wiktionary, the commons, and wikidata as recently as Oct 2018.)"[25]

In the SPI you stated that I see no reason to block Cirt unless he resumes editing using that account, in which case I will block him indefinitely if the matter is brought to my attention. I didn't really care about that account being blocked or not, but now that Cirt has switched back to his original account to edit Wiktionary and Commons according to global contribs, that is worrying. Someone suggested that he could edit in other projects and then take the standard offer, but I believe he was supposed to do this with the Sagecandor account. It makes no sense that he's apparently trying to return as Cirt. Is there still a reason not to block him? --Pudeo (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I was making no criticism of Bbb23: I was thinking any admin can indef Cirt for the behavior with the sock (not just for socking). But then again perhaps I am wrong. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing him either, in fact I'd like to thank Bbb23 for dealing with the SPI quickly and well. But the courtesy of not blocking the master account doesn't appear to work now as he has returned to using it in different projects. --Pudeo (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

??

Can you explain why reverted my edit on Category:Geobox usage tracking for beach type? The category isn't in use anymore... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the history? Do you understand what the category is for? If you have any questions, ask the admin who created the cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I do actually... I'm doing the conversions... I've deleted numerous categories in this area already. What is your power trip about my friend? Look at the template, that category isn't even being populated anymore. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you simply ask the admin who created it to delete it? Then it wouldn't create all this confusion. The fact that it's empty is meaningless to a reviewing admin because it says not to delete it even if it's empty. How the hell do I know it's not being used anymore?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Because I tagged it as being not used. Honestly not sure what your issue is or why you are on such a power-trip. Take care. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me start this exchange over... I think we got off on the wrong foot. I'm part of a large effort to cleanup the {{Geobox}} transclusions. There are a number of tracking categories that are short lived. They are just to help us figure out which pages to convert where. What I saw was an editor reverting my WP:CSD nomination with no explanation. Since there was no explination, I re-tagged it with an edit summary explaining that the category was no longer being used. I certainly meant no disrespect. I didn't know you were an admin. I certainly respect the leadership of admins. I apologize for the miscommunication on this issue. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to {{ping}} me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Maithil cuisine

Please take a look at the recent edits to Maithil cuisine page. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by another Admin. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Strangeguy91

Strangeguy91 has returned as another user after seven months (created on 11 August 2018) to exactly the same editing pattern. Soft pop (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Soft pop: If you believe Marcos FTO is a sock, then file a report at SPI. In the meantime, some of your editing is problematic. Do not create sock categories. Do not slap sock templates on IP userpages. Indeed, other than discussion at an SPI or filing an SPI, you should not be doing anything SPI-related; you are not an administrator, and you are not an SPI clerk. Stick to editing articles, reverting vandalism, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well?

Plip!

Yes, and I never met one. Liam and I had a steelhead trout filet on Saturday--it was huge! Drmies (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I may not eat certain kinds of meat, but I absolutely love trout.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I prefer salmon personally but the rainbows around here are pretty good eatin' too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm more of the branzino type, but salmon with sliced potatoes and a dash of vinegar in a cazuela... that's the best. GAB^gab 18:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only salmon I ever had that I liked was in France near the Channel, and that was because it was the least salmon-tasting salmon I've ever eaten. And now I live in salmon country. Life is so unfair.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Salmon country indeed. That would be like visiting France and not drinking the wine. Oh wait! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No one approves of my habits, and they are such tasty, tasteful habits! As an infamous fish-eater once kind of said, nice habits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You will outlive us all and have the last laugh, I have no doubt.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My Talk page and one of the few places where I usually get my way, except sometimes when editors invoke adminacct or some such silly nonsense. I mean, really, I swear I haven't a cent in my admin account. Would that I did.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Marshal Jones Invent1234

Hi Bbb23, I saw the deletion of the page [Marshall Jones (Inventor)] I did not even have time to add information in, how can I get the article back for improvement? Marshall Jones is a mechanical engineering leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invent1234 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It didn't have anything of substance in it to get back. If you want to work on it slowly and not be subject to speedy deletion, create it in draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cttam123

You blocked Cttam123 (talk · contribs) as a sock; you might be interested in Bris234 (talk · contribs) which looks to be a clear DUCK to me... GiantSnowman 15:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As in - I've reverted and blocked based on DUCK, and tagged as suspected sock. GiantSnowman 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Cttam1234 (talk · contribs) GiantSnowman 15:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for the blocks and the heads up. I adjusted the templates on the new puppet userpages. The template you used doesn't indicate that you blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry for removing some parts of another user comment [26], It was by my mistake as his comment is directly located below the comment which I was replying to. Regards.Ryanoo (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't think it was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mind fixing this

Would you mind doing this long-term bully a favour and fix this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TonyBallioni. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please verify I did it correctly. I hate reverting move vandalism; I'm always worried I'll screw it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks fine. I'm normally pretty good about fixing that sort of stuff, I just don't like the appearance of log entries of my deleting my own SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Your choice, but in these circumstances I'd delete mine in a heart beat and am pretty sure I've done it before. Color me fearless - except in real life where I can be a total wuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:BingBong321

Do you mind reaching out to the user who tried to CSD Ron DiNicola? There's either a competence issue or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I'm not getting through. Maybe a third party will have better results. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the history of the user. I see little point in reaching out. They're not interested in discussing anything with anyone. I've blocked them as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for always being willing to look over my shoulder. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's anyone we know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Did you see my log from this morning? That sock was also on an IPv6 range, blocked as the dog/rapper vandal going back a few years (by Graham87 and DQ, among others)--but rap/woof was never in California as far as I know. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

St. Peter and Paul Church, Brebbia

Hi,

I would like to know why you have deleted my draft page "St.Peter and Paul, Brebbia"

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.camilla (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing in it except a tiny infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Elton John

I have no idea what a sockmaster is; I'm not as Wiki-literate as you. Sorry if I was disruptive - is there another way I can contact TheGracefulSlick? Would you be interested in reviewing the Elton John article?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

TGS was indefinitely blocked as a sock (see WP:SOCK). As with any user who has been indeffed, there is no way they can participate in anything on Wikipedia. Your inviting TGS to participate is like asking them to create another sock account to do so. And no, I'm not interested in reviewing the John article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

RFPP

I see you're currently active, can you please concider acting this request. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, nvrmnd already done. Thanx anyway. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Teoporta

Hi Bbb23, I just got a message about a speedy deletion of yours, of the page [Kataoka Corporation Ltd.] I am a 100% sure why it was speedy deleted before one even had time to add material. It's a company leader worldwide in its sector, and most EV batteries are being tested by its equipment. How could I get the material back for improvement? Teoporta (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I can move the article to draft space if you wish. After you think it's ready to be accepted as an article, you should submit it through WP:AFC to get feedback from more experienced users. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Radford page

Hiya, I noticed you removed the tables regarding Noel & Sue Radford’s children and grandchildren why did you remove both tables HospitalHistory (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We cannot include DOBs for children. It's against policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the children are not notable, and including their names and personal information in such circumstances runs contrary to WP:BLPNAME.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. You say it’s against policy to add children’s DOBs why is it acceptable on the duggar page? HospitalHistory (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about 19 Kids and Counting. It's not acceptable, but no one has removed it. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. See also User talk:Drmies#deleting all the children on Radford family page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Children added to an Infobox must have their own article, deeming them notable, all others are represented by numbers. See Infobox person#children - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough but I’m the only user that people pick on. I’ve been bullied since I joined Wikipedia last year and yet you people don’t care. And it’s because I have learning difficulties. HospitalHistory (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So why do I bother editing on here if you people tell me off all the time espically Rach0851 HospitalHistory (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about editors picking on you. I know I haven't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So why do you not care that I get bullied nand not do anything about it. No one on Wikipedia likes me and you lot never say thing nice to me. HospitalHistory (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean you people never say anything nice to me and Rach0851 has been bullying me. HospitalHistory (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You don’t understand Bbb I have been bullied on here no one will do anything about it no one likes me. The reason I have been bullied is that I have learning difficulties. You don’t believe me that I have been personally attacked by Rach0851. Why do I bother with Wikipedia 95% of the time if get told off all the for any edit that I do. For once all I want is for you lot to be nice to me and yet you lot are bullying me (I know you haven’t Bbb). Why can people get away with bullying me and nothing gets done about it HospitalHistory (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s Rach who has been bullying me AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HospitalHistory (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at Rach0581's history, it looks to me like they apologized to you. Unless I'm missing something, you should just move on. If you feel like you don't want to edit at Wikipedia for any reason, then don't. I can't make you feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean. I do want to edit on Wikipedia but I always get blasted for it. What do you expect me to do. It sounds to me you are protecting Rach and Rach has never apologised to me. Why shou I move on Rach has been doing this to me since I started on here last year. And year no one will tell Rach off HospitalHistory (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And this is classed as cyber bullying and cyber bullying is illegal yet Rach0851 is getting away with it and won’t apologise to me. HospitalHistory (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Dawlatzai, Arbaz khan Tanoli along-with 103.255.6.68 and 103.255.7.16

@Bbb23, Following is what I posted on the Talk page of 103.255.6.68:

• 1) You are editing Wikipedia using 103.255.6.68 that is very much under the range of 103.255.7.16 and adding very similar, unverifiable material and without providing any proper source about Tanolis to Dawlatzai just like Arbaz khan Tanoli (talk ·contribs) was doing and got banned.
• 2). There are lots of tribes, sub-tribes and clans who are Dawlatzai, thus, it isn't exclusive to Tanolis. Hence my nomination it under CSD.
• 3). The creator, Tajik007 (talk · contribs), of this article has already been banned.
• 4) Most importantly, you are adding the very same stuff which was added by Arbaz khan Tanoli (talk · contribs), who was of the strong opinion that the Tanoli are Pashtuns and got banned by @Ymblanter:. As noted by Huon, Arbaz khan Tanoli"created POV forks like Tanoli (pashtun). Practically every edit in articlespace either emphasizes that the Tanoli are Pashtuns (without sources) or sings the glory of the Tanoli, either as a tribe or by highlighting individuals (again without sources). Examples are Tanoli, Kangra (Khyber Pakhtunkwa), Amb (princely state), Nawabzada Salahuddin Saeed. In the last few days there are also a bunch of IP edits that likely are Arbaz khan Tanoli editing without logging in, e.g. from 103.255.7.16; the pattern is the same. I have tried to explain the issue here; I don't think I succeeded." Thus, please, stop.

I will leave up to your discretion the next course of action. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 19:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you believe there is socking going on, you should report it at SPI. If you believe the article should be deleted, take it to AfD. I have nothing else to say (or do). And please don't ping editors on their own Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

KVCB-LP

Hi Bbb23. It seems you deleted this once on May 27, 2018 per A7, but it was recreated on the same day by Unknown User1234, who left Talk:KVCB-LP#This page should not be speedy deleted because... explaining why. I'm not sure what the version you deleted looked like and whether the recreation is an improvement. There also seems to have been some undisclosed paid editing just made by someone claiming to be the station's operation manager. FWIW, I think these edits were made in good faith by someone who's just not familiar with WP:COI or WP:PAID. Anyway, if you think this latest version is an improvement over the one you deleted, then I'm wondering if a histmerge or something is needed to combine the two versions, or at least let others know the article had been previously deleted. I know that {{Old prod full}} and {{Old AfD multi}} are used when an article is kept per those two deletion processes, but I don't know what done for recreations of speedy deletions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. The previous versions are in the deleted history, which is normal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my post was confusing; hopefully, this won't make things worse. The log shows the article has actually been deleted twice before per A7: once by RHaworth in April 2015 and then by you in May 2018. This latest recreated version of the article took place after you deleted the previous one on May 22; so, there's no record in the article's history of any edits being made from when the article was originally created (assuming this was back in 2015) until you deleted it the second time. So, I was just curious if a record of these edits are needed for attribution purposes, etc. to show that the article just didn't get created for the first time on May 22 as if it had never existed before, but had actually been created, deleted, recreated and then deleted again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As I already stated, the deleted history is all there but non-admins can't see deleted history. As an admin, everything looks perfectly normal to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further clarification. I was only wondering whether it might be necessary for non-admins to see full page history or to somehow otherwise indicate (perhaps on the talk page) that the article had been previously speedy deleted (multiple times) and then subsequently recreated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Cartoon Network crossovers

Bbb23, this is PowerRanger200. I think that "List of Cartoon Network crossovers" should be on this information website because "Nickelodeon" and "Disney Channel" have a list of their crossover episodes and events, so Cartoon Network should have a list too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerRanger200 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether such a list is notable, but in the article you created there was no list.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think...

...you'll ever be interested in running for ArbCom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Highly unlikely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Too bad. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely nothing like arbcom

Not even if I post the recruitment kittens?? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: To answer your question at the case request, yes, partly length but also style. It's a comfortable style that invites others to sit down and relax because this is going to take a little time to read but it won't be too hard and it will be worth it. I guess if you have a flair for writing you might as well use it. Me I consider that I'm doing well if I'm clear and understandable. Unfortunately, that usually takes time and work, and I can be impatient with myself. It may be work for you too, but it appears to be effortless.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Once I start writing one of those long posts, I'm probably not capable of shutting up till there's at least three long paragraphs and each contains at least one sentence with five subordinate clauses that would make my freshman English teacher cry. But I'm a procrastinator by nature so the idea has probably been rattling around the back of my brain for a bit before I actually write anything. (Note to self: tomorrow, in addition to the case request, you really, really do have to read that ARCA thread. Ugh. Can't I send kittens instead?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I never took English in college. I took French, which was much more interesting and so useful for talking to all the Hispanics living in southern California. Now my English teacher in high school was a nutcase. She assigned Shakespeare plays to read and gave us a list of passages to not read because she was a dreadful prude. Naturally, much of the class read only the not-read passages. Being a smart ass, I took it a step further and asked her disingenuous questions about various words and phrases in the plays. Drove her bananas and entertained my classmates. So young and so mean. My apologies, Miss Moore, for highlighting what a bad teacher you were. Do the kittens purr in French?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the French word for purr is the one French word I find well-nigh impossible to pronounce with any kind of savoir faire. Even when I was quite fluent in French I found it formidable. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

When I lived in Paris, I don't remember ever using the word. I don't think I knew anyone who had cats. I suppose it's the r's, which is a mouthful for Americans. I suggest you just crawl onto some French person's lap and just make the sound. Let me know where that gets you. Probably the same place Ethel found herself after Fred found out that she didn't have a French aunt.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The funny thing is, on the Questions for ArbCom Candidates, Gerda is linking to one of those novelettes endless long posts and asking every single candidate "Do you agree with Opabinia regalis here?" Sho 'nuff glad I'm not a candidate because I'd be like "um, which clause? which sentence? which paragraph? which point?" Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of pages created by Mylodana

I noticed you deleted a bunch of pages created by Mylodana earlier this year, but you seem to have missed this one. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at Pentaquark's talk page.
Message added 17:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you are content with my considering the technical evidence and block (and allowing the request, if appropriate) without you, just let me know. Otherwise, would you please provide comment at your earliest convenience? AGK ■ 17:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@AGK: I trust you to do what's appropriate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

your comment

Actually, I just forgot. 3 people reminded me at the same time, and I have dealt with it DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

If you happen to be bored, by any chance could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manduco? I trust your judgment in these matters, and I have reason to believe this fellow has created more accounts today. Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! My name is Shafiq Ilyasi I need some assistance could you please help me Shafiq888 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Request of uploading a persons biography

Respected sir,

                        My name is Md.Shafiq.hope my message finds you in pink of health.i need your assistance to upload a persons biography.
 

Thank you Shafiq888 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Walker

Hello Bbb23, just to let you know the IP/JonathanMarkOfVirginia seems to have returned to the page again:[27], regards. RevertBob (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you believe the IP is socking, you should reopen the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Block?

KJ2574 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On his user page, he claims that he has an "old (suspiciously blocked) account", which is 627544editor (talk · contribs). Is a block needed for sock puppetry? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, 627544editor didn’t do anything suspicious or whatever—at least not on purpose!KJ2574 09:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the thanks

Thought I would add to the thank you I gave you on the Speedy sock investigation and note that I have prodded for deletion all the pages both of the latest socks created. There's a mess of images as well. Hopefully I'll pick this up every time this one comes along because it's not clear they've got the message yet. We'll see. Thanks again. Footy Freak7 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Aussie sock

Can you run a CU on them to see if anything show up? 2402:1980:8182:2E7C:E06B:D35F:2B85:8B7F (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bbb23. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

TryToBeFunny

Yo BBB, not sure if it's worth the time or not, but IfImHavingFunThatsEnough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should now be able to be compared to FrostyThePerv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I had listed at SPI as a sock of TryToBeFunny - who has used sleepers before. Category:Lulz was their wonderful creation this time, clearly the same master. Home Lander (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors on Neillí Mulcahy

Hi there, I'm the project coordinator for Wikimedia Community Ireland, and I am working with a group of students in UCD working on Irish biographies. I've just been alerted that you have blocked all the student editors that were working on Neillí Mulcahy. While I agree that some of their edits left a lot to be desired, they all appear to have been blocked without any discussion on their talk pages. They are not sock puppets, and it seems a shame to remove everything they added and return Mulcahy back to a stub. Their projects are coming to an end soon, and will be taking part in an in-person editing event tomorrow, is there any way to work around this? Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca, I knew there was a possibility that they were classmates, but from my point of view, that just meant they were either socks or meat. If they are students editing as part of a project, then they should identify themselves, including identifying you as the coordinator. I am willing to unblock them, but not if they are going to add the promotional material back to the article. Unless encyclopedic material is added to the article, it should remain a stub. A class project is given some leeway, but what they were adding was was over the top to the point of being disruptive, although based on what you've told me, I'm sure that was not their intent. Let me know how you wish to proceed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, unfortunately being outside the US we don't have the same capability to mark article talk pages as being worked upon as students once the Education Extension was retired, we only have the Outreach Dashboard to track and monitor groups. If you could unblock them, I would be hugely appreciative. As I said another team leader will be meeting with them in person tomorrow as part of an editing event, so she can work with them on their content. I have also alerted them to why they have been blocked via email, and will keep an eye on the changes they make. I can also send them a few more notes on where they were going wrong, all of their edits were in good faith! Thanks again, I really appreciate your understanding! Smirkybec (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

All unblocked. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! :) Smirkybec (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

CU decline

Hi, thanks for dealing with the case. Can I know why the CU request was declined? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Just guessing as to Bbb23's reasoning, but there is no account recently active against which Stefka Bulgaria could be checked. The CUs will not check against an IP address. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I said why; do you not know what "stale" means?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. @Bbb23: Hmmm...I know it, but what EdJohnston said is not something regular users know. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "regular users". This sentence is in bold in the instructions at WP:SPI: "Additionally, CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Was this a medium circumstance? I like mine a point. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Meat eaters begone!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago there were 35,004,732, so the medium user is whoever has user ID 17,502,366. I don't know how to look that up, but I'm a few million users below the curve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Some people think that everything in life is reduced to math.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My user ID is # 3,045,327, which is nice for me to know since I hate being average/medium. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User Bluemu314

Hi,

You recently blocked Hellishscrubber. That account had a tendency to add puffery to Columbia University, while trying to demote similar universities such as Duke University, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University etc. Before getting blocked he was ediwarring at NYU article for same reason. Bluemu314 account was created soon after, and his 9th edit summary proves he's not a new account [28]. Like Hellishscrubber, he tried to demote articles of similar colleges such as Case Western Reserve University, Emory University, University of Rochester etc. And right after his 10th edit he went to NYU article to continue from where Hellishscrubber left. And he also promote Columbia University vehementy [29]. Could you please look into this.

Thank you so much,128.122.88.233 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:SacredGeometry333

Hi Bbb23. You indefinitely blocked SacredGeometry333 as a checkuser block, but I think they're back WP:FORUMSHOPing as 49.180.99.171 trying to continue their dispute with Coltsfan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have hopped to IP 49.195.121.29 and are using that now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Check user

Can you check Darsana.vinod and Mlbnkm1. Both are likely to be the same person. Adding to the suspicion, Darsana.vinod was created (July 30) right after Mlbnkm1 was blocked (July 29).--80.161.73.114 (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Uncle Jack's Fish & Chips

Hi. While doing my daily NPP, I noticed this article tagged for deletion, so I put it on my watchlist. But I forgot to note the username who created it. After they created the article, they created quite a few redirects, which should now be deleted as well. But I can't see the article history since its deletion, so if you could provide me with that username, (and the date the article was created), I'll go back through their history, and mark the redirects for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Pirhayati.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like someone as already taken care of it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 Hi. The importance or significance of the subject had been indicated (the first fish and chips shop in Iran), then it could not be deleted based on criterion 7. It also had independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous hidden

I suspect that this editor is evading their block at User:THE UKNOWN EDITOR. Look at the history and talk page use of the anonymous mask and see what you think. Britmax (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor brought the account to SPI; I took care of it there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Farshid Hakki

Hi, the article you had deleted on 23 October 2018 for A7, is recreated. I thought you'd like to check it again. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What would you like me to do about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It was recreated just after your speedy deletion. That's why I tried to let you know. However, it's developed after my comment and I don't think the speedy deletion still is needed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you remove creation protection from a page?

Matthew Hedges was creation protected by you in 2015. Would it be possible to unprotect this? Hedges' imprisonment now has significant coverage in multiple newspapers. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, Bbb23. Sorry to disturbe you. I just detected two obvious socks for SacredGeometry333 and BDMKK. Here, making threats in my talk page, and here, using the same wording and editing the very same way (with a obsession with "weasel wording", as he describes). He is even arguing that "having multiple accounts is allowed", and we heard that before. Can you take a look? Thanks. Coltsfan (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Both plus two others blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

BDMKK

I'm guessing that he's also socking here. No surprise that he's objecting to the protection request. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Krakkos

Hi Bbb23. Krakkos again [30] [31] [32] ... can something be done? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of policy here. I'm simply asking for input from other editors previously involved in revealing your sockpuppetry. This is being done with full transparency. Krakkos (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

These kinds of counterattacks are a typical strategy used by Tirgil34. Krakkos (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Krakkos: These messages of yours at multiple editors' Talk pages may be seen as harassment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Then i guess i'll have to refrain from contacting other users regarding this issue. I'm certain that your swift closure of the recent investigation of Tirgil34 was a mistake. Big mistakes have been made by admins in this case before. In May 2015 i tagged[33] Egaplaicesp as a Tirgil34 sock and repeatedly opened investigations against him. These investigations were repeatedly closed based upon lack of technical data and sloppy analysis of behavioral evidence. In November 2015 a thorough CheckUser was performed on Egaplaicesp, and a huge sockfarm was revealed. I immediately filed an investigation showing that Egaplaicesp was in fact Tirgil34. This investigation found no technical evidence and the behavioral evidence was ignored, resulting in Vanjagenije closing the case and erroneously tagging Egaplaicesp as an independent sockmaster.[34] Additional reports on Tirgil34's connection to Egaplaicesp were filed on 02 January 2016 and 12 January 2016 (this IP is not me). These cases were both closed, with Vanjaganije stating that he would "not waste more time" on the case.[35] I even made a personal appeal to Vanjaganije showing "damning" evidence that Egaplaicesp was a sock of Tirgil34. The evidence was ignored. Vanjagenije "would not waste more time". The fact that Egaplaicesp was a sock of Tirgil34 was again pointed out on 05 February 2016, 22 February 2016, 23 February 2016 and 26 February 2016, but there was a lack of technical data and the behavioral evidence was ignored. On 21 April 2016 i sent you a personal appeal and opened yet another investigation showing that Egaplaicesp was a Tirgil34 sock. After you became involved and a thorough technical and behavioral analysis was performed, it was revealed that Egaplaicesp was indeed a Tirgil34 sock.[36][37][38] With the swift closure of the investigation of पाटलिपुत्र the mistake which was repeatedly made by admins in regards to Egaplaicesp is being made again. Damning behavioral evidence is being ignored due to a lack of technical data. Like with Egaplaicesp i have evidence proving beyond doubt that पाटलिपुत्र is a Tirgil34 sock. How exactly am i to proceed with this without being perceived as an insulting, obsessive harasser and a waste of time? Krakkos (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI

I am bringing this SPI to your attention as you were the blocking admin on the original Sockpuppeteer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on November 24, 2018 (UTC)

Could you look again at the SPI, please? 50.88.77.248 is mentioned in a previous one from March 25th. In that one, the IP was blocked for 3 months on behaviorial grounds by Vanjagenije. I didn't know this cause I goofed the master account (again, my apologizes on that) and didn't know about the SPI was performed on Demoreasimpson16. Would you consider reopening the previous SPI and looking at 50.88.77.248 and Demoreasimpson291 specifically to see if there is a connection in light of this new information? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:49 on November 24, 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in almost eight months.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Would help to know if he is using any accounts on that IP range. Again, covering all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21 on November 25, 2018 (UTC)

Not going to happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Sir" in article lede

Hi. I saw that you edited Frank Berman to remove "Sir" from his name. MOS:HON states that "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article", As far as I know this is universally followed on Wikipedia, and indeed in the secondary literature Berman is invariably referred to as "Sir Frank Berman", so I've added it back. Atchom (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atchom: Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding and for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your work as an admin! Atchom (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Delta fleet

I see that there has been some discrepancy and confusion on the delta fleet page. The article provided is dated and contains speculative information regarding the retirements of the Boeing 717-200 aircraft. I can tell you as someone in the industry delta has no active plans of retiring the aircraft. Furthermore, the notion that the A220 is the planned replacement is also incorrect. The A220 is replacing regional jets in the SLC and JFK markets. The 717 serves primarily ATL and MSP so the notion that the A220 is replacing it is wrong. Delta instead has been talking with Southwest Airlines the actual owners of the 717s that Delta leases about the creating of a lease to own program for the 717s so that they can operate them longer. Delta also has invested in a multimillion dollar engine rebuild facility for the 717s engines. Not something an airline does unless they plan on keeping a fleet type around. The simple fact is the A220 is added capacity and upgauging of regional jets only. The 717 will be around for quite some time and certainly no replacement exists for it as of this time. Something Ed Bastian even claims in the article provided for those who wrongly belive its being retired at this time. Thank you for your time and I hope that you make the decision to remove the incorrect information as I know Wikipedia prides itself on accuracy. Anonpilot (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)