User talk:Bbb23/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Can I informally request a Check User on an SPA for creating a sock impersonating me, which got me blocked?

Hi. Some time ago I was blocked arising out of this SPI filing (incidentally you were the closing admin). Respectfully, the user activity wasn't mine, I think I know whose it was, and I was wondering if it's possible to use CheckUser to show that it was this other user, and not me. The other user is User:GregCollins11, an obvious SPA who additionally appears suspiciously like an employee of the organization that's the subject of the article. I can show circumstantially in several ways that it wasn't me, and I'd like to do anything possible to remove the stain of having been "convicted" of socking, my otherwise "proud" block history containing only rudeness and edit warring, not dishonesty. However if the need to put together diffs to show this crappy editing wasn't mine could be eliminated by IP-based proof that it was somebody else, well, that would be great. More importantly I want blood from the account of User:GregCollins11 for putting me through this crap. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit aggressive, aren't you? There is no user named GregCollins11.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Make that User:Gregcollins11. Those red links are all the same! Factchecker_atyourservice 02:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But Gregcollins11 hasn't edited for eight months. So perhaps he has already been drained of blood. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the blood is actually the less important part, what I am really interested in is the positive IP comparison between User:Gregcollins11 and User:FactcheckersFactchecker that would show this wasn't me. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not possible. I quote Wikipedia:CheckUser: On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think I'm entitled to accuse another editor of socking the same as anybody else? I'm not asking my own IP to be checked.

Note that besides sock puppet accusations, CU is also intended to "investigate ... or respond to ... legitimate concerns of bad-faith editing". That's a separate basis for using it. Impersonating another editor is bad faith editing in the extreme. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I am permitted by policy to check those two accounts. I can't because both accounts are  Stale. It's technically impossible.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Blah. Ok. Thanks. In theory at least, I could still raise a sock accusation based on diffs, right? Factchecker_atyourservice 03:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Filing an SPI based on behavior would be a waste of time. It would be closed out of hand because both accounts haven't edited in so long. Like most noticeboards involving disruption at Wikipedia, we care about ongoing, or at least recent, disruption. I'm not sure why you're pursuing this after so much time has elapsed since your block, but you should let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The block log entry will be viewed as evidence of serious misconduct by anyone who looks at it, and will be used to justify subjecting me to further illegitimate CheckUser queries, exposing my personally identifying information, anytime somebody has a content dispute with me. As someone whom people frequently try to get blocked for such evils as quoting the New York Times, I'm not thrilled. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Applied Research Associates - THANKS

Your assistance in preserving Applied Research Associates (at least for the immediate future) is greatly appreciated! PvOberstein (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Apollo

In case you don't see pings, note that an IP-proxy user who I believe is Apollo the Logician pinged you over at User talk:Yamla (my talk page) over my actions. You aren't obligated to weigh in, but I'll accept any decision you make, there. --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: That was yesterday, and I blocked him then for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha ha, thank you. I know you are limited in what you can say and I appreciate you looking into this. --Yamla (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

De la lombertie

Hello Bbb23, the sock master you blocked here is back and added his (unsourced and non-notable) Sanfourche obsession as his first new edit. SPI opened anew. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And now taken care of by Amortias - blocked for a month. He also spammed his 21st wiki (Catalan) today as well. Loopy30 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bhurit Bhirombhakdi page (Restore)

Hi Bbb23, I have noticed that you deleted Bhurit Bhirombhakdi under A7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi) ---(04/04/18).

This page is the English version of the original page (https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95_%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%A2%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5)

I would like to restore this page and show to public. In addtion, I have found refencences to include, which I could add.

Could you please help to restore this page?

Note: References (Both English & Thai languages - Articles that credibly indicate the real person)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/sports/Bhurit-and-Kantasak-Won-Back-to-back-GTC-Races-in--30290836.html ,
https://wiki2.org/en/2016_GT_Asia_Series ,
http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=The_Mask_Singer_(season_3) ,
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/news/detail/776164 ,
https://www.prachachat.net/news_detail.php?newsid=1495081698 ,
https://brandinside.asia/interview-bhurit-singha/ 

Please let me know if you need further information Thanks,--Bananabacon (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you and the other user have been trying to promote that article both here and at the Thai wiki. I should have deleted it per A7 and WP:CSD#G11. My assumption is you have a WP:COI. Nonetheless, I will move it to draft space if you wish, but only if you submit it through WP:AFC so other more experienced users can review it before it is moved into article space. Let me know if that's what you want and if you'll agree to handle it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@BBb23 The purpose of the article is to indicate that this person does exist, with reliable sources that I have found. I did not intend to promote the article in terms of marketing purpose. If your assumption is I have a WP:COI, I would submit it through WP:AFC for reviewing process by others. so, please kindly move this article to draft space. Thanks for your support Bananabacon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bhurit Bhirombhakdi. This is not the first time it's been moved to draft space. If the article is moved to article space without first being approved by AFC, you risk the article being deleted again and possibly salted.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious

Hi B, this guy looks suspicious to me and I'm not sure what to do about it. His first edit was to an skeletal article that was 5 days old at the time. His second edit was to welcome Archive to, a user who was named as a potential sock of Shiwam_Kumar_Sriwastaw, although you found no connection. It's very interesting to me that multiple experienced editors are keying in on this Archive to guy, considering he's only made 4 edits here.

Trademark's next two edits: creating a talk page and redirecting his user page to his talk page. Those are both socky and questionable moves for a new user. He's also created new articles that have a lot of IPV6 users swirling around him, which has the stank of coordinated editing. Note: this and this. Anyway, I don't have more information about this guy, I just think something's up. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock if appropriate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So, after Trademark (2018) is blocked and Yeh Hai Chahatein is deleted, suspicicious user Archive to, who made four edits on 18 March, suddenly shows up and creates Yeh Hai Chahate. This is the same show, he just effed up the title. Weird, right? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That almost certainly wasn't done by mistake, but to avoid scrutiny from anyone with the old title on their watchlist. Quack quack, block block. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Thanks for the block. I guess I'm curious about the behind-the-scenes of why they didn't show up during the last two CUs. Naturally, I'll never find out. I am amused by the way this played out, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"show up"? They were explicitly checked and found to be unrelated. That said, they are not the kind of unrelated like editing from a different continent. The technical data doesn't match at all, but it's not impossible that they are indeed a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw is the one of the most popular user in Wikipedia. I don't know when he will be stop creating sock puppet account? If Wikipedia change security system, Ex. Email (optional) → Email (required), then it will be better for Wikipedia. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page 'CSN Debating Society'

The page was still under construction when it was deleted. (A variety of placeholder items were used for marking purposes, to be altered in the future.) Also, the A7 marking for speedy deletion gives exemption for academic institutions, of which the mentioned topic is covered under. Furthermore, the covered topic is significant as having won notable and renowned worldwide competitions, in addition to being significant in that it is one of the most established debating societies on the island of Ireland. Theclownfromit (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You're fortunate I haven't blocked you. Part of that article was pure vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, that was bad. This subject does not meet educational institution criterion. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

PS@Theclownfromit: I would recommend running it through the WP:article wizard to help you overcome any and all deficiencies. You will need verifiable information from reliable sources not connected with the subject.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Please don't counsel a troll on how to create an article. One more of his disruptive edits and he's gone. Take a look at his contributions. Take a look at the infobox in the deleted article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for explaining sock puppet investigations to me. AdamF in MO (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry it took a little nudge from you to get me to do it. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sajlus

Mike Diamondz, a page I created was deleted, deeming it wasn't relevant. I do not understand what does qualify something to be relevant/worthy to have a page, since I provided additional citations and decent phrasing. A heads up would have been appreciated. (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sajlus: The article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - not because it was "irrelevant", but because there was no credible claim of significance. Indeed, there was nothing to the article. You said the person was a singer, and that was pretty much it. A heads up isn't required before speedy deleting an article, but it is customary for the nominator, Biruitorul, not the deleting admin, to do so, and in this case, unfortunately, that wasn't done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: There are millions of singer stubs on Wikipedia that have stayed for many years, but mine got deleted. It provided references and had more informational value than many of the other singer stubs. --Sajlus (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Douglass Mackey

I'm seeing a connection from this page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Do you believe the latest account, BustEmDown should be added to the currently open SPI? Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No need. Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You deleted My page "and the kids" the first page i ever posted

The band is on a national tour now and haas two records out and has also toured Europe; will also be opening for Blondy this summer. It wasnt just promotional page. I might agree it didn't show the largness of the band but it was , a page in progress, until l it was deleted with no discussion.

I want to repost a page called "And The kids (band)". Is it going to be speedy deleted again?

Even if it has more required information . Again this was my first post ever and you all deleted it 5 minutes after i posted it. I did get a warning message but almost before i was done reading the warning message, the page was deleted:

I was going to mention the page to some more informed people so that they could add to it, but that didn't get to happen because you and another person deleted it.

Can i repost it with more required information? They have been a band for over 10 years and have numerous writeups in notable publications. Is it going to just be deleted or will it be reassessed?

I am a total newbie...i am just getting a clue, I didn't even know i had to sign things. Davidinkeene (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Davidinkeene: A couple of pages you might want to read before trying to recreate that article are WP:BAND and WP:Your first article. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you reconsider your decision?

Hi Bbb23. I'm not forum shopping as I'm not trying to get anyone to make a different decision. I'm just trying to get someone to make a decision in the first place. It's my understanding that requests for closure are to be posted on administrative noticeboards. Since I'm suffering ongoing abuse from a lack of closure, I don't see how it's not reasonable to ask that someone close the SPI one way or another. Can you please reconsider your decision, which strikes me as hasty, to close that ANI section as "forum shopping"? I don't see how it is that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You closed one part of the SPI but not the part against me? No one has adduced any evidence at all and now it's just random editors commenting every time I edit an AfD. How is this reasonable? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Requests for closure are generally made at WP:AN, but, even there, it's rare to do so for SPIs. In your case, particularly because your editing pattern is unusual for an IP, I recommend you create an account for yourself. It's up to you, but if you choose to remain as an IP, you're going to be questioned, probably even after the SPI is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for answering. Obviously WP policies require IP editors to be treated the same as named accounts and, just as obviously, that's never going to happen. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but it's still a serious matter. How is it that editors are allowed to call me a sockpuppet when no one has even concluded that I am, and also abuse me for notifying them of an ANI discussion as required by the rules of the page? I know you said that I will be questioned if I edit from an IP address, but surely that doesn't extend to actual abuse. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23 when you have time to look, I added some evidence that establishes a behavioral connection between this IP and Unscintillating. I have not even touched on diffs that connect the IP and Unscintillating combative behavior, so more evidence can be provided to strengthen the argument that Unscintillating is indeed evading their t-ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Point taken

However I feel like it's straining at a gnat to admonish me for trying to make sure that people can see clearly which comments were made by whom while at the same time swallowing the camel-like violations of WP:NPA by e.g. Waddie96, who feels free to explicitly call me a sockpuppet even though the investigation's not closed, not to mention the whole crew of editors explicitly telling closing admins to ignore my !votes at AfD for the same non-reason. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Learning experience, and a further question

Apologies for my invalid SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KDGMusicGroup, this is the first time i've had to deal with such a circumstance, so i will treat this as a learning experience. I would like to ask; do softblocked editors have to disclose on their second account that they are using a sanctioned new account?--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it OK for you to remove my comment but not OK for me?

If you remove it as a dupe, why is it not OK for me to remove the original as a dupe? How does this make sense? If you admit they're dupes why not at least leave them both in so it's clear I'm not trying to cover up my identity? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Steven Samblis page?

This page included links to news about the person, movies he produced and starred in and well know companies he started. This page was not an advertisement and a simple google search shows 17,000 searches about him and 16,000 videos with him in them.

I feel you made a mistake in this deletion and it should be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beancake2 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I deleted that article almost three years ago. The most recent deletion was done by Explicit because of an expired WP:PROD.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Numista

Numista yields over 300,000 search results and often Wikipedia uses their images of the coins. I do understand your views on deletion, but can you please explain? I am a bit new here and I believe that Numista reaches enough significance to be mentioned.

Thanks a lot.

BrianTheInternetSurfer (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

An A7 speedy deletion tag doesn't require the deleting administrator to do Google searches. The article, as written, has to have a credible claim of significance. All your article did was say this website exists and this is how it works. In fact, it didn't say much more than the Numista website itself might say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BedrockPerson

Oy. I'm trying to help you guys fight vandalism, but I am increasingly tempted to leave you to your own devices. It's fine if you want to archive discussions just a couple days after they're concluded and then make them impossible to edit, even if it seems alien to me. But the proper thing to do would be to provide a response somewhere after you reverted my question. So here it is, repeated:

Could you please clarify what you mean by "too old"? This user tends to have stable IPs and use them to vandalise after extended periods of time. The third one seems to have been globally blocked, but the other two should probably be given long blocks as well as a preventative measure. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to come here to report socks, but it would be helpful if you would learn a little about how we do things. Your reopening of the Bedrock SPI was incorrect, and it will require an SPI clerk to fix it, which they shouldn't have to do. All you had to do was to go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions (btw, please don't try to fix the report yourself now). If you didn't know enough to go to that page, you could have asked someone.

As a general rule, we don't edit archives of any type except to create or update them when actual archiving is taking place.

Responding to your specific question, it is standard practice for us not to block IPs in a sock puppetry case once their edits are more than even as little as a couple days old. It's generally a waste of time because the master just goes on to other IPs. What you do at Wiktionary may be different, but the policies and practices of each project vary, and you shouldn't be surprised that ours apparently aren't the same as yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

By "reopening of the Bedrock SPI", do you mean the edits I made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson or the edit I made to the archive that you reverted? If the former, please explain. If the latter, I really don't have a problem with leaving archives alone; I only had a problem with your lack of response.

I also tend not to block IPs that I think are never coming back. This guy has had some extraordinarily long-term stable IPs, so it tends to be worthwhile to block them for longer (after all, it takes less than a minute). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to take into account your observations about BR's IPs in the future, but I'm not the only one who closes reports in that way. I meant your edits to the case. Next time you want to create or reopen a case here, go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions. In that way, the report will be properly structured. It has to be structured in a certain fashion for it to be archived so that editors like you can then improperly edit the archive. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello! I was doing my usual patrolling this afternoon and stumbled upon a few things. Firstly, this message from a blocked user. Second, they left the same message here. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced as them being unrelated, and left User:Cæsey blocked. As all I know is from the aforementioned links; there is probably something I missed, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 00:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The user posted messages to other wikis where they are not blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. My question was more along the lines of why they are still blocked, when you closed them as unrelated. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 00:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, lots of times a user remains blocked despite my finding. You'd have to talk to the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Wu Pei-yi

Hi, I received a notification that Wu Pei-Yi's article has been deleted by you. Can you please explain why? I think I edited it recently and although notability had not been agreed on I thought it had some time to have the notability discussed before deletion. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It was vandalism created by a sock. Did you happen to notice who the woman's spouse was - according to the creator? Kyrie Irving. This sock had a thing about American basketball players, both real and made-up. If you want to recreate the article, that's up to you, but I can't restore it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, no I didn't notice that! How odd! Thanks for the explanation. MurielMary (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A question

I've got a question; If B is reported to be a sockpuppet of A, will you search for all accounts possibly related to B when you conduct check user, or you just compare B with A? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I compare B with A but in doing that check I may see other accounts that relate to A or B. A concrete example might be more illuminating.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you know...? I saw a new comer with a more than usual editing skill for new comers, who were reported to be a sockpuppet of another user, but you said they were unrelated, but did not say if the reported user could be related to another unknown account. Is it usual? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

AGF sock

Hi Bbb23. I left {{uw-agf-sock}} warnings with both Maria Cecilia de la Vega and MCDLV, as they are both new and editing The Rules of the Institution and Other Stories. The latter account confirmed that they are the same person, and that she wants to use an abbreviated username instead of her full WP:REALNAME. There doesn't appear to be any malicious intent here, since the second account's first edit came after the first account's last edit. Would you pre-emptively block the first account in this situation, or just let sleeping dogs lie for now? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Maria Cecilia de la Vega, the one she says she doesn't want to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

More deletions

Could you also delete Template:Taxonomy/Gspsauridae, Template:Taxonomy/Saraikimasoom, and Template:Taxonomy/Saraikimasoominae which were only created to support the Laossaurus pages you've already deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't eligible for G5. You'll have to use another deletion process unless there is a speedy tag that is applicable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've followed the usual strategy with unnecessary taxonomy templates (blanking them and putting them in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates); I thought in this case you might be able to delete them because they were only created to stop Laossaurus's unacceptable pages causing other errors. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably just being skittish...

Rassenschande is an article that English Patriot Man often edits. An edit was just made to the article by editor Sergey Romanov. Sergey Romanov is not a new editor, but the vast majority of their edits were made in 2006-2008, with one edit in 2010, and then they popped back up again in mid-March for 5 edits, and then 2 more today, just after you blocked 2 EPM socks. Looking at Sergey Romanov's edits, there isn't a lot of overlap with articles I'm familiar with EPM editing, but there is a concentration on Polish subjects, and Poland was another area that EPM often edits in. And then there's the fact that an old sock of EPM was called "Donald Ivanov".

So, all very circumstantial, nothing very concrete and probably just my antennae being too sensitive, but I wanted to pass it on to you. Not knowing how CU actually works, I have no idea if the editing info from mid-March would have been too stale for you to pick-up on. Or if your CU run is based on a specific IP or what. In short, I don't know if it's even possible that an editor with Sergey Romanov's contributions could have slipped through the net all these years or not, but I figured you would know.

Best,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you help save page "Rick Reinert" from deletion?

My page on Rick Reinert is in trouble because this one person reported it and said "It didn't have a reliable source". Can you help save it before seven day? Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The 7-day PROD is gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mitsubishi love

Mitsubishi love (talk · contribs) still violated policy: logging out to evade scrutiny, especially to avoid the appearance of tag-teaming with a user one happens to "like", and repeatedly trolling over several weeks by refusing to disclose the name of one's account until immediately after an SPI is finally opened, is still unacceptable. What should be done now? Is ML going to be blocked? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the IP blatantly lied when they said The account that I used does not (to my knowledge) have any overlapping edits with the IP that I use to edit: ML was a single-purpose account created to continue the edit-warring on the targeted killing page that the IP had begun.[1] I don't see any evidence that they disclosed that they were the same person editing that article either. ML also has a CU-confirmed sockpuppet, Insect love (talk · contribs) that was created a few days prior but never edited, and it's also wrong to say they were never subject to any sanctions; they abandoned the account immediately on being warned on ANEW, and returned to using disposable IPs to do the edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I won't turn someone else's talk page into a battlezone, if you're going to request for me to be blocked, then this discussion should be on an SPI or ANI report, not on a user talk page. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The SPI was shut down prematurely with "Probably not Spacecowboy420; closing with no action", as would an ANI report be (the owner of this page just closed an ANI thread saying that sockpuppetry reports should not be made anywhere but SPI). What you did was still a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Anyway, I already asked you to stay off my talk page; please refrain from pinging me on other users' talk page with the ironic statement that you don't want to get into a back-and-forth with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I respectfully suggest that you refer to my previous message. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding sock puppetry by "I'm The Invincible Man"

Where should I file this? The sock puppet investigation wizard made the changes which you reverted here. My proofs seem to be correct and the editor under a new guise "Sprocket Crocket" is adding CATs without any source to support just like "I'm The Invincible Man". What to do. Please guide. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You figured it out. Good for you and thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome sir.. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock (again)

Hi Bbb23, Kilebogart31 is a sock of Klbogart55... I've done very little investigation requests so I coming straight to you! Thanks, Corky 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's tough after so much time has elapsed, but I've blocked the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Of "Achim Reus"

In the deletion of the Achim Reus article, you stated the reason for deletion as follows "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." However, in the article, I wrote that Mr. Reus was the Principal Horn player in many renowned orchestras, I believe this qualifies as an importance of his character, and should have been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Gerald Hit (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I know what Reus claims to have done. I looked at his website, which is as much an advertisement as it is a bio, but I didn't think it was enough. I know you're a new user, but the article is very poorly crafted per our standards. It has mostly self-serving, self-published sources, including Reus's website and YouTube clips, two of the three published by Reus, no doubt to sell his services. Here's what I propose. You shouldn't be creating articles in main space. So, I can take what you wrote and move it to draft space. Not only will that give you a chance to work on it some more, but you can get feedback from more experienced editors by submitting it through WP:AFC. Let me know if you wish me to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point now, and moving it to a draft space would be greatly appreciatedGerald Hit (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. See Draft:Achim Reus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of b8ta

Hi Bbb23! I noticed that you deleted B8ta. The article was still under construction at the time of deletion, and will meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines when completed. Can you please move the deleted draft (however small) to the draft namespace (Draft:b8ta) and notify my by pinging me once that has been completed. Thank you! Daylen (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daylen: Small is an understatement. See Draft:b8ta.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding the page on Tratayenia

I was curious as to why the page regarding the megaraptoran theropod Tratayenia was deleted. Is there any way to restore it and have it cited in a better format? Saberrex-Strongheart (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It was deleted per WP:CSD#G5 in a "mass deletion", meaning I don't examine every article before deleting. In this case it is appropriate to restore it, and I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. And while you're at it, can you also restore Anomalipes, please? Atlantis536 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about dinosaurs, but the sock involved has a history of creating dubious articles. Unlike Tratayenia, Anomalipes clearly qualified for deletion. Also, its only source is not something I can easily verify. Is there another editor who has a more extensive history on Wikipedia than you who could corroborate that a restoration is appropriate? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've followed your advice and talked to User:FunkMonk, an editor with a good editing history on prehistory-related articles. I've showed him that Anomalipes was a real, scientifically-described dinosaur, and said that we can definitely recreate the Anomalipes page. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Schöma

Hello,
Instead of deleting Schöma, you could have called a "stub". Extensive information is available in de: Schöma. The deletion caused a red link in Rail transport in Iceland#Kárahnjúkar light railway. I made a temporary fix. Peter Horn User talk 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not going about this in the correct way. You shouldn't have created a Talk page of a non-existent article. I don't much care about the redlink in the other article. That has nothing to do with whether the article should be deleted. However, if you wish to work on the article to bring it up to par, I can move it to your userspace or to draft space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please move it to draft space and if possible provide me with the deleted text. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)There's a template, {{ill}}, to use for the temporary fix of making a redlink in English wiki while linking to de wiki. I've used it in the article. PamD 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:ChaoticKappa

Hi Bbb23. Just a courtesy note to let you know I've unblocked this user; their explanation checks out. Additionally, it appears that the en-wiki domain is now barred on Bugmenot, so this issue should not arise again in the future. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI close

So... that's it? - ^theWOLFchild 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but you can refile if the IP resumes editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This parricular user is using this IP account much like a registered account. In fact several editors have suggested they register. They have used alternate IP addresses before to give the impression of others supporting their edits during disputes. This has also been noticed and commented on by another admin. After this latest instance, along with a 7RR-in-one-hour edit war, with 2 IP addresses, I figured enough was enough. I filed at 3RRNB and it was suggested I file an SPI as well. Kind of frustrating... all that effort for nothing. - ^theWOLFchild 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Corageon1

I had a feeling this would be the case but you might be interested in this. Perhaps a merge and some denial? :P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about the denial, but a merge yes. Good for the IP and for you. I'll request the merge.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Icandothisonmyown

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out what happened with my SPI regarding User:Icandothisonmyown. It looks like you deleted it, but your deletion message mentioned a merge—did this get merged into another SPI? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the account belongs to a master who already has a case, and I decided that a merge for one blocked account was unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Small request

Hi. Could you please semi-protect User talk:CommotioCerebri for the long-term, so the redirect is not removed by IP's (who I suspect are the user)? I have locked that account, and the one it was renamed to, but I’m not allowed to use my superpowers for this purpose. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Ooh, I get to do something for you for a change. Done for six months. If that's not long enough, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, much obliged. That should dissuade the user. Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vidal 1077

Thanks for the help. Is there a SPI report? Vidal 1077 is a very strange account that I've repeatedly encountered while cleaning up poor refs, which I wrote up at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No report. There's no need to file one unless you want to "for the record".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to know if other editors and ip's were found, or even looked for. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Only the two accounts. I can't comment on IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Very strange. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Athikkadai

Hi, Bbb23. Could you help me with an IP account? It is about 83.110.220.113, which has been spamming the Athikkadai article for a long time. Me and Marquardtika have been reversing him, but he does not give up. I await your response, thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You haven't warned the IP. Nor have you taken the issue to the article Talk page. Regardless of the lack of quality of their edits, don't you think you ought to at least try to talk to them before asking for administrative action?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, and he has not stopped. Super Ψ Dro 07:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Bbb23. This account was created just hours after the last SPI on VJ-Yugo was closed. Their username, like in the case of VJ-Yugo and some of the blocked socks, contains military terms ("army"), and they are removing Albanian names of some settlements outside Albania, sth countiuosly done by VJ-Yugo (examples: [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]). Furthermore, Rotor is editing a great variety of topics (unusual of newbies), a trick VJ-Yugo has tried to make use of before. Since you said in the last SPI that a CU is not needed for every new sock of VJ-Yugo, is CU needed in this case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Active little bugger, isn't he? CU-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Yep, he is trying to escape detection but can not figure out how to do it. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:De la lombertie

Hello Bbb23, thank you again for your continuing work at SPI, it is appreciated. Could you re-look at the accounts in your close of Raymondskie99? While the IPs were indeed stale, the sock-puppets User:Loopy30isgay and User:Delanlay 69 should actually be associated with a different sock master, De la lombertie. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no relationship between De la lombertie and Raymondskie99, and the two accounts I blocked were without question operated by Raymondskie99. The reason Loopy30isgay attacked the De la lombertie SPI was because of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Lokesh1699

Looks like a checkuser comment may be needed at User talk:Lokesh1699. The blocked editor is claiming that there is no relationship with two other accounts that have made substantially the same edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo

Hi Bbb23 I was trying to make it like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson#Nomination_and_confirmation If you know how to do it that would be great. Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's premature to add it until there's something to put in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I did put it. the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Voted 10-996.36.68.29 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, with the mess you made of it (no offense), I couldn't tell. I actually didn't know the Committee voted until just a moment ago. I think the vote, though, was 11-10, although it unfolded procedurally in a rather unusual way. In any case, if an editor wants to put it in and properly source it, fine. I don't feel like doing it, honestly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to this, it was 11-9 (with one Democrat voting "present"). --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 some users are saying we are in an edit war I watch C-SPAN every day here is what it say and you can read it and watch the whole video to your self

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Meeting on Mike Pompeo Nomination The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a meeting to vote on the president’s secretary of State nominee, current CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The Committee initially voted 11-10 to support the nomination. However, Senator Isakson’s (R-GA) vote was by proxy and by Senate rules could not be used to move a nomination to the floor. After some discussion, Senator Coons (D-DE), who opposed the nomination was recorded as voting no, voted present to allow the nomination to go forward by a vote of 10-9.

Video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?444353-1/committee-votes-send-pompeo-nomination-senate-floor

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The vote was 11-9. Senator Isakson's proxy vote did count. But per Senate rules, a proxy vote can't be THE vote that makes the difference. Once it was no longer the deciding vote, it counted. BTW it's interesting to see all the amazement in Washington that a senator would do something nice for a fellow senator as Coons did. The nomination was going to be approved anyhow, but it would have required Isakson to jump on a plane and fly to Washington that night. And yet in today's partisan atmosphere, it seems to be astonishing to the PTB to see a courteous gesture like this to a member of the other party. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor

As you are most familiar with the activity of LTA / sockpuppetry on this page, I would appreciate if you would look at recent history. It looks like the same old stuff here, and I know what I am seeing, but I don't want to get myself into trouble here. Many thanks in advance! Scr★pIron^IV 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't comment on IPs. If you think the IPs (the range) is a sock, please take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I have done so. Have a great day! Scr★pIron^IV 14:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Paani Foundation

Hey, Why did you delete the page I created about the NGO Paani Foundation. It is important to convey about this organization as it is involved in public outreach to a huge audience across a big state in India. Please reinstate the page - by Paradoxs (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paradoxs: I restored the article and re-deleted it based on g7, g11, and g12 (copyright violation). It's nothing but an ad for a non-notable organization. Copyright is taken seriously at Wikipedia, and if you violate copyright again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Adjustments were made

I did make adjustments to my comment. It seems you did not even read what you were reverting and just acted upon Capital00's orders. What attack did you see in the following text? Don't you think you are overreacting?

As for Mblaze Lightning's supportive comment is concerned, there is no substance in it, saying "Yeah it's him" and putting a megaphone next to it does not make him, him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to make the comment regarding the other editor. So, don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Read it again, it’s not about the other editor, it’s about his supportive comment. Who is talking about the editor? All I am saying is that there is no substance in his comment. I never said there is no substance in him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Littlemixfan! IPsock

IPsock Special:Contributions/59.100.215.150 geolocated to Australia. Continuing edit after August 2017 block. See here and here. Soft pop (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is remains possibly inactive. Soft pop (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Soft_pop

Just FYI in future I would raise this as a WP:SPI rather than leaving a message on a CheckUser's talk page. Talk pages can get so busy sometimes messages can get missed and not every CheckUser is fortunate like Bbb23 to have a nosy Wikipedia administrator watching their talk page! :D

Also, filing an SPI means that you're not relying on one CheckUser, all CheckUsers would then see it and it's likely to be dealt with quicker.

In this case I've raised the SPI for you and I've requested CheckUser evidence as I'm assuming that's what you would have done if you had raised the SPI yourself. I've also blocked the IP you mentioned above. I've also tagged you in the SPI that I raised so you can see what happens with it, add any additional evidence you might have etc, but just in case the tag doesn't work, you can find it here--5 albert square (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Bhurit Bhirombhakdi

Bananabacon (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Hi Bbb23, I need help about submitting for reviewing AFC process. At the moment, I have a draft version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi and I would like to send this draft to review by AFC process before the article publish. So, How can I submit this article?

Thank you

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wildberryemk

Thank you for your cooperation in this case. Although it has been closed, this vandal has been making very similar edits to the ones shown in the case. See these. (1, 2). I highly suspect that the vandal is creating multiple accounts to vandalize Wikipedia to evade their block. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Belligerence

Hey, you asked me not to use the word "belligerence" , can you cite a policy or point me to the list of prohibited words which contains "belligerence" as one of them?

You are kind of putting curbs on my freedom of expression by these maneuvers. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm going to put a further "curb". I'm reverting your last edit and I don't want to see you post any more to that SPI. You've made a few good points despite some of the language, but at this point you're being disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That is just insane, Bbb23. What did I ever do to you? How can I earn your trust? I know you have all the power here being an admin and all but I always thought I have been sticking to the policies. Can you please let me know what policy you are following removing my comments and putting further curbs on my freedom of expression? Also, is there a list of words not to use and belligerence being one of them? Do admins follow any policies or they are above the law here? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DE.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought this through and thus acknowledge that I have been too blunt and overboard with my latest comments and would like to request you to allow me to post to that SPI while I promise that I will stick to responding to the latest evidence added by the filer and not deviate from it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but three things: First, comment factually on the evidence. You don't have to describe it as "frivolous" or "worthless" or other similar adjectives. Second, make sure that what you have to say is helpful to the clerk(s) who will evaluate the behavior. Remember that the clerks are experienced at this sort of thing. Finally, the more additions and rebuttals added to the report the more cluttered it becomes and the more difficult it is for the clerks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the Marvinfos75 SPI. That was great cross-wiki cooperation, if I do say so myself. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

New sock of VJ-Yugo

Hi Bbb23. Agin Neva was created less than 24 hours ago, and is editing exactly the same articles edited by some of latest socks of VJ-Yugo, making the same changes. For example [7] vs [8] and [9] vs [10] vs [11]. His first edit was on an article related to the war in Syria, a preferred topic of VJ-Yugo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) blocked. Note I blocked Neva Agin (talk · contribs) yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks. The case of the account you blocked yesterday is interesting, VJ-Yugo was following me around a year or so ago. He might try to follow you around now. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: yeah, he has been. He's not very good at it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

I think it's important that I tell an administrator this, a sock puppet is vandalizing pages simply because I or another user undo there edits and now they want to get back at that person. I believe this is the same person who kept vandalizing the Virtua Fighter 5 ‎page from 2017 and did so recently.[12]

I think this is all the same person or has a friend helping.

• 24.24.216.163[13]
• 107.77.228.202[14]
• 172.85.180.114[15]
• 2605:E000:2E54:800:5CA2:D188:52AC:B45E[16]
• 107.77.228.232[17]
• 2605:E000:2E54:8F0:F021:D7FD:C273:F305[18]

108.82.12.122 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You picked the wrong administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You what?

You deleted the page "You what?", citing G3. I looked into G3, and it describes:

"pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism"

My page did not contain vandalism, or hoaxes. The phrase "you what?" is not a hoax. It is frequently used in a similar way to pardon. --Macaroniking (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot on

[19] is a perfect summary. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Can you take a look into this account: Tustrazara? It was registered today and immediately made two controversial edits in two articles with long-standing disputes. It is unusual for new editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the limited technical data, there is no evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed?

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. I'm currently summarizing Long term abuse of a puppeteer, and evidently his actions can be found in English Wikipedia as well. I've seen that many accounts were blocked with Checkuser template on but I can't found the investigation anywhere. So I would like to have a confirmation that:

1. Choccobkk (talk · contribs)
2. Anybodyfitfit (talk · contribs)
3. Phudthammai (talk · contribs)
4. Happynaturist (talk · contribs)
5. Humhom (talk · contribs)
6. Khalummoi (talk · contribs)
7. Golf-ben1010 (talk · contribs)
8. Alexioo (talk · contribs)
9. Itipisox (talk · contribs)

are the same person. Thanks. --Horus (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Golf-ben10.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again, but I saw en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Choccobkk and en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Golf-ben10. I can't found any pages that are specific and the blocking reason given by various admin also not helping much. So all of these are the related, yes? --Horus (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, you're more on top of this than I am. The Choccobkk socks were blocked by me in the summer of 2017 without an SPI ever being filed. Many of the Golf-ben10 socks are also blocked without being noted at the SPI. In any event, all the socks I've blocked are related. I can't speak for ones I haven't confirmed. The Golf-ben10 case should probably be moved to Choccobkk because that account is older.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Horus (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Olonia sockpuppets

This guy (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) is persisting in vandalizing the same page - Italian destroyer Espero (1927). He continues to use different accounts, most recently User:SoccoPuppetto and User:BismaBarabba. This clearly qualifies for WP:3STRIKES and WP:NOTHERE. Not sure what can be done, can you at least protect the page for extended period of time perhaps? maybe he'll come to his senses and gets on with his life? Can you also revert to previous edit, or should I do this? Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Account blocked, article semi-protected three months, sock reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Evangeline Paterson

Hello. Why is Evangeline Paterson not a credible author? It seems silly to keep removing good articles from Wikipedia. Deleting, is unnecessary pruning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Articles about living persons must have reliable sources, for which Amazon notoriously does not quality, not even as an assertion that such a person exists. Having something nominally available on Amazon, like having a song available on iTunes, does not constitute a claim to anything, least of all notability. See WP:AUTHOR for guidance as to what is a notable writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with your opinion or that link. Excluding non-mainstream authors is a terrible policy because it only focuses attention on market leading authors. Why not take up the cause to correct the mistakes of this at Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just look up the ISBNs

Paperback: 59 pages Publisher: Dedalus Press (22 Jun. 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 1873790643 ISBN-13: 978-1873790649

Paperback: 47 pages Publisher: Other Poetry; First Edition edition (1991) Language: English ISBN-10: 090714909X ISBN-13: 978-0907149095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Hi Bbb23 and thanks for taking the trouble to comment on Ivanvector's Arbitration request. I thought I would give you the opportunity to review a couple of things you said there. Firstly, I believe the only reason John objects to the reinstated material was because it cited The Daily Mirror is puzzling; the material in question was sourced to the Daily Mail, not the Mirror. Secondly, the part John decided a long time ago that citations to the Mirror are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. is not just factually incorrect (you again name the wrong tabloid newspaper) but by making a statement about what you think my motivations are, I think you are getting towards WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I would be grateful if you would restrict yourself in future to describing (accurately, if possible) my behaviour which you find objectionable, which is objectively observable, rather than your ideas about my motives, which are perhaps more a matter for me. Additionally, while I have a fairly thick skin for personal insults, I'd ask you to review your choice of words here. I'm sure, like all human beings, I have my jerk moments, but I honestly don't think this was one of them. In any case, I've found that using language like this will often raise the temperature of a discussion without producing a corresponding increase in light or solubility. All the best, --John (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your in retrospect I probably shouldn't have either, that was decent of you. If I may, I'd like to challenge you also on John decided a long time ago that citations to the Mirror Daily Mail are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. His rigid view has not been accepted by many editors. I certainly do not think my view on this is in any way exceptional; a well-participated RfC concluded a year ago that Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. (my emphasis) We also have a core policy, WP:BLP, which states This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. (my emphasis) If I am out of line in reading these two very firm longstanding consensuses and concluding that this was a terrible edit, even with WP:EVADE arguably behind it, then I still do not see it. I am perfectly ready to accept critique on the way I delivered the message, but I stand utterly by my judgement that the edit was unacceptable. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting. --John (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Anusha Gunasekera

why are you thinking it is not notable. it is a page of a legal advisor to a major political party (in which the chairman is the president) and a Justice of Peace so i think it is notable. As I can't give my opinion about this in the Afd page , i wanted to tell you this so that atleast you could reconsider your opinion. Thank You ! 112.134.44.58 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Disruptive Editing may result in a block from editing

Just saw the LTA page of Royer2356 and got to know you are involved in blocking them. This new user openly claims to a sock. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What new user?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing may result in a block from editing (talk · contribs) - this user. They've been blocked anyways. 16:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry, I didn't realize that was the name of the user in the section header.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 Comment

How are you - I would like to request an autopatroll right from you via your admin rights, as you can see through my contrib. I patroll 24/7 and a few rights would be productive and an ease for me, . Best regards // KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@KnowledgeChuck: First, don't come to my Talk page and ask me for a special permission when you've already asked at WP:PERM/A. You were correctly declined there by Schwede66 because you just created this account about a week ago. Second, you are not a new user at Wikipedia. What other account(s) have you used before this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I did NOT know he declined my request, please do not get it twisted. And 2. I have soley been in Wikipedia earlier without an account, I started editing a week ago or so. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thirdly, you are rong by miles, what do you mean FIRSTLY? I asked you 13:56 5 May - I got a decline 14:00 5 May,check the times youself. --[[User:Knowle--KnowledgeChuck (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)dgeChuck|KnowledgeChuck]] (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't get anything "twisted". I can see timestamps. The fact that Schwede66 declined your request after you posted here doesn't mean you weren't forum shopping without informing me you'd already made the request elsewhere. Please learn how to WP:INDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be the respectfull one and apologize if I confused you by any means, I hope you understand that anything misleading was not intentional. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for the unblock.

I have a question: How do I change my signutares? I see many having colors on their. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregard that, I have now changed it; inspired by User:L293D. Chuck (☎) 23:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to block an IP

Please see [20] and block this IP, note that I have rollbacked, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Middayexpress/Soupforone socks

Further to the most recent block at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress, the same editor is back with a host of new accounts User:Rogundra90, User:Qevoja, User:Wahure, User:Kobe19782 and others. All seem to be used to edit Somalis, a page of interest of sockmaster. Im not sure what can be done, but was wondering if there could be extended page protection placed on the article given the persistent nature of the socks. Please note that most of the socks would bypass the semi-protection requirements. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please report this at the SPI with evidence. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential Sock

Sorry to bug you, but I don't do much sock reporting, and in this instance I'm not sure how to structure the investigation request. In doing NPP, came across several new articles by a blocked user, User:SahabAliwadia, which had been moved into mainspace, either from plain drafts, or drafts which were sitting in AfC, as declined. The second is not that unusual, as sometimes other editors will come across abandoned drafts and work on them. However, in this instance, it looks like User:Assddffgg, which is a rather new account, is doing this on behalf of the blocked user. See Muneeb Butt and Anum Fayyaz. In researching edit histories, I also came upon User:Navssd who had similar edits, and who Assddffgg also appears to be focused on. See Shadi Mubarak Ho. Sorry to be long-winded, but the point is, in the past I've always posted edit differences in the Sock investigation, not sure how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Bbb23. I am going to send you an email. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Look at the section above and the link to the thread at WP:AN. Unfortunately, the thread is very long and the suggestions varied and often contradictory. Personally, I'd pay closest attention to remarks by User:BWolff (WMF). I have nothing to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

gad

I shoulda seen that.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked without tags?

What does "without tags" mean in this context? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Two things. First, because they may be meat puppets, we don't really have suitable tags. Second, and more important, I can't check the master because the account is  Stale, so I can tie the three new accounts only to each other. Tags are discretionary anyway, and in these kinds of cases I generally don't tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I smell an Aussie sock

Hi. I smell the first and the second sock like an Aussie sock. See here and here. Soft pop (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bookworm8899 sock farm

Hi Bbb23, thanks for your detective work wrt the Bookworm8899/Gustmeister sock farm. Gustmeister's conduct raised alarms but I never suspected him of sockpuppetry. Could you please take a look at this new user here: [21]: looks like a duck to me. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed logins - IP?

Hi Bbb23,

Quick random question;

I've gotten a couple "failed login from a new device" warnings over the past week. I'm a little curious whether someone is trying to hack my account. It's not possible at all for someone to identify the IP's that these "bad logins" are coming from by any chance? I know gmail allows you do this kind of thing. Does WP? NickCT (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you seen this thread? Adam9007 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Good cite User:Adam9007. That's a big thread. I guess Beeble's 20:24, 3 May 2018 comment is the important one (i.e. that the functionality is being worked on, but not yet available)? So figuring out the IP can't be done? I would have thought someone with CheckUser could do it. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. Adam9007 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point in time, a CheckUser can't identify an IP who attempts unsuccessfully to log in to an editor's account. There's a possibility we will be able to do it in the future. An IP attempted to log in to my account. I summoned all my super powers, pointed my magic wand at the IP, and poof, they were pulverized. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Password resets track the IP if I'm not mistaken. Virajmishra had been trying to reset my password for a while and the only reason I know it was him was because the reset emails had his IP. He also tried this with other admins who blocked him/declined unblocks. Hasn't happened in a while though. —SpacemanSpiff 02:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Password resets and failed login attempts are two different things.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I smell a sock

But I have no idea who this is. Any ideas? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs · count), along with Trjdn0900 (talk · contribs · count) and CRRight (talk · contribs · count), which you blocked late last month. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who occasionally forgets my own actions. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks... I am actually not all that familiar with the legion of music oriented socks. But I have a short list of very experienced editors who are, and when they tell me "so and so is an undoubted sock of x," I tend to trust them. Ss112 is near the top of that list and he keeps me busy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ss112 is an astute fellow. The two most prolific sockmasters I know of in the music sphere are Giubbotto and MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs · count). One of Giubboto's targets is Chris Brown. Maria is a bit more diverse in her taste. I'm worse off than you, though - I know almost nothing about popular music of any kind. My main musical interests are classical and opera. You don't find many socks in those areas.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

They can be found. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• And another fairly new user who seems to know their way around Wikipedia rather well...[22]. Any thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: Somehow I don't think that's a music-related sock.  Confirmed to Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Noah Hobbs

Thank you, Bbb. The editor's promise to write articles on all of Duluth's councilors may bear watching [23]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How many are there? --Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Duluth City Council. He'll be busy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you can't post here for a short while. The price of editing as an IP when some other IPs are jerks. The more I look at it, the more I see this council promoter editor may be a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Overlapping sock farms

Bbb23, you had CUd this farm and also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atmnn/Archive. I see some of the socks I blocked without CU (but confirmed to each other and possi-likely to the JBM1971 farm by you) and a couple of newer ones (I blocked two socks today) as exhibiting more of the behavior of Atmnn than the JBM group, although it's more than possible that they are just making minor changes in behavior with the different accounts and I'm being had. Just wanted to see if the two are actually the same? Also pinging Sir Sputnik who clerked and tagged the JBM SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Are you asking whether the two cases are technically related or which master the socks you blocked yesterday (I haven't looked at them) are related to? I'm a bit confused.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My primary question is if they are related, and if not, are the Upplapati1, Samanthathepirate (and other confirmed to each other accounts) closer to the Atmnn farm in technical match than the JBM1971 farm. I blocked Upplapati and Kannadigathewarrior yesterday as blatantly obvious socks of Upplapati1, but had to tag them as JBM1971 based on the SPI clerking. And this post by the sock reinforces my thought that they may actually be two different groups as only the Atmmn group does this kind of stuff --[24], and the same stuff has been going on with Samanthathepirate and Upplapati1 too. Maybe it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it'd be easier to track the socks to the right draw. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Last week, I had also asked for some other input here, but I haven't gotten any feedback yet from the two editors most familiar with the farm. —SpacemanSpiff 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There are technical similarities between the two cases. The problem is I have limited data on JBM1971 whereas a lot on Atmnn. I guess my preference is to wait and see how the socks develop before deciding whether to merge JBM into Atmnn. I also think behavior is key - and I'm not as familiar with it as you and others are - although we both know that not all masters are consistent in their socks' edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've only come to this sock farm recently, I'll wait for the next sock and then file an SPI with detailed analysis so that we can merge or split as may be necessary. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rude and pointy

This was very rude of you [25] and I expect better of you. Shameful close. I raised a valid concern about a poor close and you mocked me. Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

On the substantive point, I agree with Legacypac: if the closing administrator had tried to assess consensus, he might very well have found consensus to ban from the RefDesk as well. Certainly, many people who opposed the full-breadth WP-space ban mentioned that a ban from RD in particular was worth considering, and many people who supported the narrow ban also mentioned that they supported a RD ban. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable (and certainly not "bitching") to seek a proper close with an analysis of the discussion. --JBL (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe you should revise your close as it was inappropriately abusive. See WP:ADMINACCT Legacypac (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to change "bitching" to "complaining" but only if that will satisfy you. If it won't, there's no point to changing it at all. BTW, the close was endorsed by another admin, and in the body of the discussion, at least two other administrators felt that your bringing it up again was improper.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are not entitled to insult me. You should change your comments because you recognize they were inappropriate not to make me happy, which is going to be tough to do afer you wilfully insulted me. Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You're imputing motives to me that I don't have. From my perspective, I didn't insult you. I just used a casual word for complaining that some people wouldn't use. Apparently, changing it to complaining will not make you feel better, so we're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the right principle to apply to this situation. --JBL (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your close here [26] allowed 72bikers to again attack me without diffs. I believe he has already been warned about such conduct recently by User:NeilN. Reopen the thread and give him time to post his diffs please. Legacypac (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The threads above make it amply clear why you deserve this barnstar. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanamonde93.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I second the barnstar. Well deserved! -Zanhe (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Socks talking to socks

Jansprat123 is unconnected to all the socks involved in this mess? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, unrelated. Are they the only one left in that RfC who isn't a sock?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems so, but an editor with 78 edits knowing the proper syntax to close a RFC... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They're a fast learner. They may be a sock of someone but not of either of the ones I dealt with. This isn't the first time, though, that they were suspected of being a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Another suspicious new(ish) user

Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) That account is a  Confirmed match to Astralyu. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD. I have indeffed both accounts. I will let a check user slap the appropriate template on their user pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rocchelli

I don't think the English is as bad as you claim in this case, and anyway it can be tweaked without loosing details and references as you suggest by reverting to previous versions. Should you have English grammar suggestion to make please do go ahead, otherwise I would not find your contribution constructive for the article. Many thank for your attention Aletheia18 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The English was terrible. Between Galassi's and your most recent edits, I think it's better, though it still has phrases such as "The responsibility of Rocchelli's death has being inquired by the Italian authorities", "his action didn't pursue any significant result", " these also testify the duration of the shootings, the morphology of the place, the civilian outfit worn by the victims", "they stopped to take some pictures in proximity of a railway line", and "the group was targeted by mortar shells". There is also material that simply doesn't belong as it's not noteworthy. I note that you are a SPA and obviously not a native English speaker. You are therefore hardly qualified to judge as to which edits are constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He's back again (MaysonMage009)

• 10-Test (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Green Giant: Globally lock this account. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theinstantmatrix:  Done. Green Giant (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: and also IDONOTCAREABOUTTHISWEBSITE. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This account was blocked right after creation because of the username. The account never edited, and I don't see a basis for assuming it was created by MaysonMage009.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Re my addition after the page closed, I didn't know it had been closed, and only realized it had been when the edit was made and I checked it. My apologies then.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Paani Foundation

Hello, I believe you had deleted earlier version of the page Paani Foundation, presumably due to a copy/paste job by the earlier creator. I wanted to let you know that I have created the page again, since this is a notable organization. I have added a couple of reliable sources and plan to expand the article soon. Just keeping you informed. Thank you. - Electronz (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Very considerate of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-close comments

Sorry if I violated procedure, but it's always been my assumption (based on common practice as I've observed it) that post-close comments that are made in good-faith (not trolling, unconstructive complaining about the close, continuing to argue over stuff that was already addressed by the close, etc.) are generally tolerated rather than blanked. In the past month (disregarding this mess) even you've allowed two post-close comments on ANI threads you closed to go unblanked and included in the archives,[27][28] and on those occasions either (a) the commenter couldn't say the thread had been opened and then closed while they were asleep or (b) the thread was out-of-place to begin with and the commenter even acknowledged that.

I'm also pretty sure I've left post-close comments on threads like that one in the past and never been reverted.

Please note that I am not criticizing you for removing my comment, and would just like an explanation of what, if anything, led to my comment being blanked; I can't find anything about this in WP:CLOSE. I'm clarifying this because, honestly, I've been really uncomfortable posting on your talk page recently after some stuff closely related to some other stuff I emailed you about earlier, which gave me the impression that you were confusing me with someone else (a NOTHERE troll one wrong comment away from a block) like last March and don't want you to think I'm picking fights or some such.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Bbb23's removal of your post-close comment. IMO it was unnecessary pot-stirring. Softlavender (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Maybe so, but it doesn't get more unnecessary than "I know the closer already said this, but..."[29] At least I was making a point that no one else had apparently made specifically, and that I hadn't had the chance to make before the thread was closed as that only took three hours (22:19 to 01:35 my time) despite several editors calling for a boomerang. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Every case I close is different. In this one I made an administrative decision to warn the IP without additional sanctions. Thus, unless there was something new the OP did after my warning, there was no reason to add anything to the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock of Phantasus Magician

Hi Bbb23. Ss112 thinks Dracoijui may be a sock of Phantasus Magician. I have blocked them temporarily for disruptive editing but would like confirmation before indeffing them. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged, along with Woolpit (talk · contribs · count). It would be great if you would file a report at SPI for the record. You can close it at the same time as you file, but it would establish a technical baseline if any additional socks pop up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done and thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"No reason to revisit this"?

[30] Did you not read my rationale? If I'm right the editor in question is banned by the Arbitration Committee and yet for some reason has not been blocked. If you actually went through all the evidence connecting them and decided that it was insufficient, then you should say so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know I know, it's a violation of WP:ADMINACCT for you to just ignore me like you did last time this exact same thing happened. If you aren't willing to explain or justify your actions, then you shouldn't make them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. SC420 clearly only ever edits from his account during office hours, which would make evading CU easy (he just never logs in to his account from another terminal); the only argument that has ever been made for his innocence is that CU determined that the accounts were "unrelated", and you've been throwing out/ignoring all the behavioural evidence, but until yesterday no one apparently noticed how SC420's editing pattern made deceiving CU a possibility. If you have seen some more compelling evidence that there was no sockpuppetry, then please at least say so, and if you don't want to on-wiki per WP:BEANS, then you could at least say that. (Although you also still have my email.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hijiri, why don't you just email ArbCom. You've been here long enough, and I'm sure you have em on speed dial; if someone like Bbb says "close with no action", then they probably have a good reason for it. And seriously, just drop the whole thing where you link ADMINACCT and BEANS and all that--no one here is a rookie. There's five million articles; go play somewhere else. I hate to say it, but Wikipedia:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I linked and paraphrased ADMINACCT (and to a lesser extent BEANS) was because I got the impression people were thinking I was a rookie (why I said Just so you know I know), and it wouldn't be the first case of mistaken identity involving me and Bbb23. It never occurred to me to email ArbCom over a routine sockpuppetry issue -- I don't think I've ever emailed ArbCom except in cases of off-wiki harassment, some piece of sensitive information related to an ArbCom action I noticed but was not directly involved in, outing, or someone explicitly suggesting I email them, usually a combination of two of the above -- but I guess I'll give that a try anyway. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Or per BEANS you just leave it be. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a dickish response. If Hijiri had gone "play somewhere else", we'd still have a couple of prolific POV-pushers trashing sensitive Japan-related articles. Instead he stuck it out after the other editors had given up in frustration—and Wikipedia's much better for it. Wikipedia:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU either, Drmies, and you're doing nothing to improve a shitty situation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh? well, I guess it takes one to know one. What I DO know is that shitty situations seem to follow Hijiri's dramaboard exercises, or perhaps they precede them, I don't know. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The fuck? Is everything okay at home, Drmies? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I stopped beating my wife, yes. Turkey, you can be a bit of a dick, but I've never known you to go below the belt. Good luck next time. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The fuck was that supposed to mean? All I was saying was that your responses are so scattered, you don't seem to be in the frame of mind to be dealing with people. If you've never known me to go below the belt, why would you assume I was now? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

The page that you edited to la guns is better that purpose thanks. Happy wiki ARMcgrath (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked sock editing via IP

The same blocked sock per recent Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress is back at Somalis making identical edits to blocked socks via IP, these include removing author's file [31] (just like blocked sock [32], [33]...etc). Could there be extended page protection placed on the article given the persistent nature of the socks? As discussed previously, please note that most of the non-IP socks would bypass the semi-protection requirements. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• My limited CU skills do not extend very far, but semi-protection, that I can do. [person who plays Bbb on daytime TV:] Drmies (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies, I should have responded to this earlier but it kinda went by me. Semi-protection is better than using your consummate CU skills; I try to avoid making a public connection between IPs and named accounts, even if I don't technically violate policy by making a bald statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Haha, I'm both bald AND made no connection. I'm a little bird and I drive completely on instinct. Poor Middayexpress--We could have been so good together, We could have lived this dance forever ... Drmies (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and Bbb23, your help in the matter is appreciated. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Spi

Hi u had blocked User:Bijoy Thepla and I think it again has created a sockpuppet. I have created a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bijoy Thepla kindly look into the matter. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Restore File:Lucas the Spider.jpg

Can you restore File:Lucas the Spider.jpg that was caught in mass-deletion of uploads of a blocked user? This file was fine and I'll double check the fair use rationale to make sure there are no concerns. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Can you do an IP check on User:Jamez42 and User:ZiaLater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.247.10 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, according to this source, the (currently blocked) IP is a colocation web host. Can you confirm this? Favonian (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, but they are a proxy. I've blocked a relatively narrow range for three months as such.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for correcting me on that hoax about that "band"! I don't know how a hoax like that could have gone on that long without being noticed. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was just as skeptical at first as you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Admin socking

Do we normally open cases or mail Arbcom ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

E-mail ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response ,I have emailed you and the Functionaries team and Arbcom .Please let me know if you want any more information and has the Functionaries team got may email.Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

CU

If I open a SPI, can CU compare a currently active account with one that was blocked on March 13 or the blocked account might be stale? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It depends on when the account last edited, not when it was blocked. If it edited on March 13, it would not be stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The blocked account's last edit was on March 15, on their talk page. Thanks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Poly Bridge

Do you think you could recreate Poly Bridge or at least send me the refidea list that was on Talk:Poly Bridge? I understand the point of G5 but we shouldn't let socking users get in the way of serving readers. I had seen the talkpage refidea list and I know for certain there were more than enough SIGCOV in RSes to pass WP:GNG. Thanks! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Omnideck 6

This article seems to have had history dating back to 2015, was the G5 a mistake? I can't view deleted revisions currently past the histmerge logs but archived versions of the article show refs with 2015 accessdates and so on. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

G5 was not a mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What would be the next step to request that this be restored? Neither WP:REFUND nor WP:DRV seem appropriate but I still think that allowing G5 to get in the way of non-disruptive content is working against the purpose of the encyclopedia and constitutes a disservice to readers. Please let me know what can be done. I'm more than happy to recreate it under my own name with a summary note that attribution can be found in deleted revisions to satisfy WP:PATT. Thanks for your help! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Stalking

Not sure if you have seen the attacks on user:Philip Cross, but I just blocked theantiphilipcross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a harassment-only throwaway. I am pretty sure nobody would be stupid enbough to register that account on the same computer they normally use to edit, but given the profile of these attacks off-wiki you may consider it worth checking if there are sleepers. I'm not filing an SPI because it would be rejected as a fishing expedition, this is harassment more than socking I think. Feel free ot ignore if you think I am being silly. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Added their pages to my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not stupid enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Sorry for the delay in thanking you for checking :-) Guy (Help!) 09:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Deathgarden

Hi Bbb23,

You recently deleted Deathgarden, as it was created by Personale (talk · contribs), per WP:G5. Is there a possibility that you can restore the article? It was requested to be created at WT:VG#Deathgarden, and was endorsed by @Sergecross73:. Thanks, and kind regards. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The article wasn't in that great of shape, but when asked about the plausibility of an at the Wikiproject, I did a search and found a number of reliable sources discussing it in detail, so I do believe a notable article could be built on the subject. The cleanup tags on the article were warranted, but the notability ones weren't really. If Soetermans is willing to clean it up, I think it'd be worth restoring, at the very least to the draftspace, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Please do whatever you wish with the deleted article. I'm not happy restoring the work of this sockmaster and would prefer not to do any additional restoration. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan restoring stuff like this either, and would have likely done the same thing were I you in this case, but if someone's mostly interested in using it as a base for a big reworking, I'd be open to that. I'll work it out with Soetermans. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 and @Sergecross73, sorry to have wasted your time, Sergecross73 pointed out that it wasn't in particularly good shape. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Puzzled

Howdy. I was having a productive discussion with User talk:Leftwinguy92, who I'd observed had been making largely productive and largely useful contributions to en.wikipedia since Feb 2018, when somewhat unexpectedly he was blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the blocked user, Torygreen84. Now I sympathise that socks are a pain in the arse and pathalogical liars, but I've been an editor for over 10 years, and this guy doesn't seem to fit the mould. Maybe he's a really good liar, but maybe he isn't. Can you please explain, on User talk:Leftwinguy92, why you are so sure he's a sock? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised Leftwinguy92 doesn't have more sock puppets. I've seen that editor make many edits on race related articles, and there is no doubt(to me) that they are affiliated with a white supremacist group. Probably a Metapedia editor, definitely active on various other alt-right venues(gab,4chan). In any case, the account was confirmed to be a sock. Dave Dial (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. "Older & wiser"? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

RKM sock farm

Hello Bbb23, I know we can't apply G5 if the creator isn't blocked but there are enough behaviour which indicates this user is none other than RKM who is now underway to recover their deleted article such as Tanisha Singh. It will be great if you can please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishi Kumar Maurya and compare the deleted version of Tanisha Singh with the latest version which looks exactly same to me as much as I remember. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Flerte Fatal

Looks like the fabulist may be back on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Victorrendan 173.175.217.135 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"fabulist"? Now there's a great word I don't think I've ever seen on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Names- Thank you

Dear Bbb23, Yngvadottir, Drmies, thank you a lot for your efforts and time. It has been noticed that recently, the user ColdHardTruth in which its account was created two days ago, and had only edited Majid Rafizadeh, making widespread changes to the biography of this living person which appear to be detrimnetal and negative to this living person (some examples are provided below). ( It is worth noting that the page was previously -almost a year ago- edited and sourced thoroughly by experienced Wikipedia editors and has been confirmed and untouched for almost year until ColdHardTruth began editing two days ago.)

Some of ColdHardTrutg changes include: adding phrases such as "self-proclaimed" scholar to the page Majid Rafizadeh. Some may disagree with the views of the this living person (Majid Rafizadeh), but as you experienced and respected Wiki editors have taught us, one should be civilized and objective on Wikipedia. The subject is a scholar at Harvard University (https://scholar.harvard.edu/majidrafizadeh), have briefed in the US congress, and is invited on national and national international outlets such as CNN. Disagreements in views should not lead other users to be disaggreable towards the person.

Secondly, there are several Majid Rafizadeh in the US. The user ColdHardTruth has been deleting information about this person, deleting Harvard, and adding a University of South Florida's affiliation which belongs to other Majid Rafizadeh. No proof has been provided that this person is from University of South Florida (except for a text with same name) . But it is verifiable (at least through a picture, date of birth, etc) that the living person is from Harvard University and he has been giving interviews from Harvard Kennedy School (such as https://www.youtube.com/Pe-Y6ok_l5M)which is only used for Harvard employees . The wiki page of this living person has always had his Harvard University work (please check history) till HardColdTruth began changing it in two days ago. In addition within the international and scholarly community, it is a well known fact that this Majid Rafizadeh is from Harvard and different from other Majid Rafizadehs including the one from Florida.

Again, your efforts are highly appreciated. It will be appreciated if you can restore the page back to what it has been for almost a year and back to the time before the HardColdtruth began editing and deleting many information and sources, two days ago, while adding unverifiable information. If you are OK with that, I can do this task as well be verifying everything and fully respecting your amazing brilliant work.

Thank you Mediaoutlets (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb, I wonder why this user wasn't given a username block the first time they showed up. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Way I see it, this is the only "source" in the article--and it's nothing but a link to a book "published" by Ketab.com, which is an Iranian bookstore, making me think that this is self-published; nor is it clear at all how this book about drama and juvenile non-fiction offers us a biography of the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: You're the champ of username blocks. I generally block only the promotional ones. As for the article, my only involvement in it was to semi-protect it. I didn't even read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

IP edits on You Raise Me Up

Someone (or some users) repeatedly tried to change genres, i.e. replacing sourced info with unsourced info. The latest edit is this example. 71.14.20.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not the only IP; other IPs are 68.190.56.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.91.51.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 63.92.231.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I asked two IPs to discuss the genres at Talk:You Raise Me Up, but neither have done so. Moreover, a few IPs come from the same location: Albertville, Alabama (according to one website). I wonder whether you can look into this please. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're bringing this to me, but, regardless, I don't see anything special that needs doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Patricia CV

Hi Bbb23, messaging you here because Ad Orientem is on vacation and he can't block editors evading their block. Would you be able to do a check on Amber Silver as being a sock of Patricia CV? I'm almost certain they are. Frequenting the same topics and speaks exactly the same. Thanks. Ss112 15:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting

Hello Bbb23, This is the subject of the page Majid Rafizadeh. I am not sure who and how to reach to the appropriate person for my serious concern. Based on the following from Wikipedia site, I have read that "Biographies of living persons, where the subject is of marginal notability, may be deleted by any administrator if the subject of the biography requests deletion" and "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." It also adds that "the BLP may be speedy deleted". The page is also subjected to excessive socket puppetry. As a result, I am writing to request if possible please, the deletion of the page through the speedy process. If you'd like to confirm that I am who I am please feel free to call me or email me. http://iaccouncil.org/contact/ Mr198013 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr198013: Assuming you are Rafizadeh, what about the article is accurate and what isn't? Do you live in Washington, D.C.? What about the articles on you on other wiki projects? Do you want those deleted as well?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, I truly appreciate your swift response above. With respect to your questions, most of the information in the article are not accurate. Many people add their personal opinion. Regarding the other projects, I honestly have not read them meticulously to commentate appropriately. Please feel free to contact me if you desire. I realized that the Wikipedia policy may necessitate confirmation: "Subjects may approach any admin to request that their biography be deleted. Admins should take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that they are dealing with the correct person by, for example, telephoning the subject at work, or by making sure that the subject's correspondence does not rely on webmail." Regrading your other question, my life partner has a sensitive position at the Superior Court, as result it would pose a threat and high risk to our lives to disclose our permanent residence. Currently as I am writing, I am traveling for an emergency and I am not in DC. I would sincerely appreciate it if you or anyone who is in charge, would follow up on my request for the speedy deletion. In addition, it seems that there exists a general consensus that the page does not meet the requirement and that it should be deleted. Your endeavors are appreciated. Thanks Bbb23 Mr198013 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Mr198013 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like MusicalGenius2 is MrWriter245

Hi Bbb23. I've been doing some digging after "MusicalGenius2" accused me of being a sockpuppet of "Bardigang" and it appears sockpuppets of MrWriter245 liked to edit topics related to Bratz and RuPaul's Drag Race. Well, lo and behold, those are two topics MusicalGenius2 has been editing. I believe if you did a quick CheckUser on them, you'd find they are the same as MrWriter245. Their report was probably just a case of misdirection by accusing another. Ss112 12:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't do it at their own case; it's kind of a giveaway. Not to mention the behavior. Gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page of blocked user

I reverted two of Mr. Daniel Plainview's edits [34] [35] which were made after the user was blocked for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do a blanket revert of all of a sock's edits, but I would consider the post-block talk page comment to be a clear case of WP:EVADE. I'm open-minded on this matter and would value your insight. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 00:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:EVADE applies to edits by the blocked user to pages other than their Talk page. And even there I would be careful of doing a "blanket revert", particularly with a sock like this one who made about 500 edits - many to controversial pages and to noticeboards - before they were blocked. The Talk page comments were an admission of sock puppetry. There's nothing wrong with that; indeed, it is welcome. The refactoring of their comment (to make it "nicer") was also okay because no one had responded to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge of sockpuppet investigations

Hi Bbb23,

You unconclusively investigated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatongakinsella/Archive at my request. I posted the same message on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Upwork_account and SmartSE told me about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone, which is the same person. Should I merge the two pages? Un historien (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not permitted to merge anything. That is the exclusive province of SPI clerks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking, you could be more user-friendly... So what is the solution, as the accounts referred to are the same ? Un historien (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your saying - or someone else saying - they are the same doesn't make it so. BTW, I did not "unconclusively" investigate your report. I found all the accounts unrelated except the stale ones. I almost declined to check the accounts because there was insufficient evidence of socking. Just because users are hired by the same company doesn't mean they are the same person or even know each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Upwork is a platform where clients and freelancers are put into relation ; and each client has a profile. I listed pages corresponding to jobs I found on one of these profiles, with a single name, a single picture, a single LinkedIn profile, etc. ; the name displayed on this profile is the same as the older sockpuppet investigation. It would be a very strange coincidence if it was not the same person, no? Un historien (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The accounts in your SPI report are operated by different people. Therefore, they can't be the "same person" of any other case. I don't think there's anything more to say on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Meta

Not sure if you ever check your meta talk for the unblock requests you get there, but did want to make you aware of my comment on this situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't check meta; nor am I an admin at meta. Access to his Talk page here was revoked weeks ago. He shouldn't be doing anything except through the master account anyway. @Green Giant: would a global lock be appropriate? It's not just meta. The account is editing other projects as well. For example, he posted a personal attack today at Tony's Talk page at en.wikiquote. He then removed it, but he obviously needs to be stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...@TonyBallioni: if you feel harrassed then a lock is just a matter of asking. From what I’ve seen I’m not going to lock straightaway because they’ve left an "apology" of sorts at Tony's Meta talkpage. They’ve also left a message on my Meta talk page. On Wikiquote they appear to have decided to quit WQ (see the admin board messages) plus they’ve been blocked there before. Nonetheless it doesn’t hurt to keep an eye on things. Green Giant (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I had asked in -stewards, but that was before they apologized. They’re a bit unstable to say the least (private info involved so won’t say on-wiki). I suspect they’ll be back asking for an unblock soon and it will get declined and will start up again. If that happens, I’ll let you know directly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: fix-ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Petrolex

While patrolling new pages I came across Petrolex. The author of this was blocked for sockpuppetry, but there's little information as to why this account or the suspected alt was blocked (they never edited at the same time, and neither of them have any warnings on their talk pages). Did you suspect paid editing? If so, should this article be deleted as promotional? Thank you. Bradv 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The article should be speedy-deleted only if it qualifies for a WP:CSD#G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not meet G11 criteria. I'm just wondering if this is a case of UPE, and if that should be taken into account when reviewing the article. Bradv 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I smell another sock...

Hi Bbb23, I've recently come across a user by the name of "MadethisforGorillaz", and I'm sure they have to be a sock of an account that edited the article for Gorillaz' last album, Humanz, quite extensively, as there were quite a few characters who contributed to that that have drifted away or were blocked. My guess would be "BenjaniBoy139", who was blocked for disruptive editing, but either way, I get the feeling this is not the user's first time here. Ss112 03:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your work, but please link the user accounts in the future. I don't care if they know you're "reporting" them, but if it bothers you, then use noping. Otherwise, it's just extra work for me. BenjaniBoy139 is  Stale. With no one to compare them to, I can find no evidence of MadethisforGorillaz using other named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot about noping. Will have to remember that in future. Thanks anyway. Ss112 16:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ishan Shivanand

Hi Bbb23,

Can you restore the deleted page Ishan Shivanand on my user page so that I can improve the article further.

Thanks, Vishwanath7 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion

12:22, 30 May 2018 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Moved (company) (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

When deleting pages, please check whether you have to delete its images. Sometimes these are uploaded directly into Wikipedia rather that to Common.

In this case, File:Moved Logo.png was left. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Staszek Lem could you please review and restore the page for Moved? I included a relevant New York Times link and realtor.com link in my latest revision but the page was deleted before I could save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakker (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: There's no basis for speedy deletion of that image. @Cakker: You acknowledged you work for the company. I'm not restoring it. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC) @Bbb23:

It's not promotion, the article is written to document the existence of this company. If it becomes promotional or seems like advertising, I completely understand and would agree that it should be deleted (I have read the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy). In its current state though, the article covers strictly factual information which can be built upon by other editors. I'm fine with you monitoring the page's content for anything that is against policy, but please allow the page to be restored so that others can contribute to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakker (talk • contribs)

Not that Bbb23 needs help from me, but I like to remind him I'm here once in a while and this looks like a good opportunity to do so. Cakker, Wikipedia is not a directory of companies that exists, and simply existing does not meet the requirements for inclusion. We get that having a Wikipedia article is great exposure and helps bump you up in Google searches etc., and that is why employees creating and editing articles on their company is nearly always considered promotional. The conflict of interest makes it nearly impossible to be unbiased. We have stringent criteria for inclusion which you can read about here, but there is nothing in the deleted article that suggests it meets those criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no basis for speedy deletion of that image - the basis is routine cleanup. This image is useless for wikipedia, since it is useful only for the article about this company. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Indeed, WP:CSD does not have any rules for such images. Do you think it will make sense to add a new criterion for files of this kind ? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't say so. Freely licensed or public domain images can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons if they're within its project scope, even if they have no foreseeable use on Wikipedia. I think the current process of prodding potentially out-of-scope images is fine as it allows time for the uploader or other users to object if they think the image might be useful on Commons, which CSD does not. clpo13_(talk) 20:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I figured out this myself and prodded it. However there is still a cleanup issue. Orphaned files like this are not easy to find (or easy?) and they will litter Wikipedia if hon handled right away. Maybe it would be good for the deleting admin to check and prod such files right way? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure, to be honest, that it really matters if WP has more images than we are likely to use in articles in the foreseeable future--it's not as though we have a maximum capacity for images that can be uploaded here, right? If they're compliant with our relevant copyright guidelines and aren't illegal or anything I don't think we need to delete them, or that we have a good reason to go out of our way to do so. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Washed socks and smelly drawers

Greetings. In this AfD, you deleted entirely one sockpuppet's text. I believe comments by socks should stay up (though in small fonts and struck, so that their garbage does not clutter the page). AfDs are typically archived, so by retaining in them whatever a sock wrote we have records of sock traces, with their style, way of writing, interests, etc, for the future. Admins come and go but the socks (will) keep coming up. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock edits are generally reverted per policy. In AfDs I generally revert after a person is found to be a sock and new socks are created, whereas I leave it to others what to do with the votes/comments of the initial socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Renaming

Responding to your ping: are you trying for me to rename the user to something like User:Example (old account) and then recreate the account at the same name? I could do that, but if what you want is to keep the block log in place it wouldn’t work. Blocks logs are transferred with the rename so people can’t hide from them via the renaming process. If I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to do please let me know (I haven’t had my afternoon coffee yet ) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I want him to be able to edit with the same history as User: Mr KEBAB (I don't care about Kbb2's history), either under the same username or a different one, but we'd have to provide him with a temporary password because he didn't associate an e-mail with Mr KEBAB and has forgotten the password. Obviously, he'd have to be willing to provide us with that address for this to work. Frankly, even if he's willing, I don't think it will work, but it would be the cleanest solution. Otherwise, he has to manually associate the two accounts, but other editors would have to look at two different histories.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If he’s actually forgotten the password and didn’t associate an email with it there’s nothing a renamer can do to make the new account have the edit history of an old account. Stewards can merge accounts manually, but that’s mainly to help with SUL issues and they don’t do it that often anymore (and I don’t think this would be a case where they would, but I’m not a steward.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It was worth a shot. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. You're always free to ping me for anything TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Barstern

Hi Bbb, could you revoke talk page editing for the user as well? Thanks Nightfury 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not surprising.  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.234.65.184

Regarding your recent close of the SPI, the IP was given a long-term block back a while back, so wouldn't the registered account be block evading? Sro23 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't always work that way with a named account and an IP. There's no indication that the named account is continuing to edit without logging in since the block of the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

But the IP was blocked in March, is still currently blocked, and the named account (Sagatorium) is continuing to edit even today. Since the person, not IP/account is the one being blocked, wouldn't that be considered evasion? Sro23 (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically yes but practically no. Let's say that the case had been brought back then, and there was a behavioral finding of socking based on logged out editing. The IP is blocked for a week, and the named account is warned. Does that mean that the named account can't edit during the pendency of the IP block? That would be downright weird. If that were true, then every time such a case is brought, you'd always have to block the IP and the named account equally. It's true that in this instance the IP was blocked, not because of socking, but because of disruption, and it was done before the case was filed, but I'm not going to block the named account with the same expiration date as the IP. I didn't choose that duration, and I'm not bound by it. Our ultimate goal is to prevent disruption. If the named account's edits are as disruptive as what caused the IP to be blocked, then by all rights the named account should be blocked independent of any suspected socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Sro23 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

Hi Bbb23. When you get time, can you check to see if Barbz v. Kenz is a sock of MariaJaydHicky's long string of accounts? I'm quite sure of it. Genre warring within several edits of registering, some of the same topics, same edit summaries... Ss112 08:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

Hello. Someone has just made multiple attempts to log into my account, and I suspect it's the same individual who at about the same time posted crap on my talk page as Mariner Hunter, so would it be possible for a CU to see who, i.e. which sockmaster, it was, and see if they created any more accounts? Or perhaps rangeblock them? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPs for failed login attempts are not available to CheckUsers. Password resets are.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr KEBAB

Okay, what should/could one have done instead? If I'm not mistaken, one of the conditions of his unblock was for him to clarify the connection on both user pages, and the fact Govvy got suspicious means it definitely didn't work. Don't you think that's a piece of evidence there needs to be more clarification? Thank you for your advice. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You should do nothing. It's not your job, and the notice he put on his user page is perfectly acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So are we to suppose no one else is going to have the same misunderstanding as Govvy did? Nardog (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: I've clarified the note, I hope you find it better. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How is Tan Sri Ting Pek Khiing Not Important?

I literally stated it's importance and even provided details on the page itself, maybe it's not to you Americans and etc, but it technically is for Malaysians. He's literally a well known business magnate/tycoon in Malaysia. Sisuvia (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Roland Baines hoax returns

I see you closed the thread. See DrivingDuncanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and SPI

Bbb23 I appreciate your support for my unblock. I would respectfully ask why it is so difficult to get a checkuser on User:A Bicyclette whose edits across 247 pages since 27 May lies at the heart of all this. If a checkuser is run then that will either: (a) prove that he is a sock, putting an end to the edit warring, noticeboard discussions etc. or (b) if not then obviously I will continue to deal with his edits in accordance with normal policies and procedures. For a recent example of his complete disregard for rules and policies please see this: Talk:Body count#Unbelievable... regards Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You should assume that the user is not a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI awaiting admins

Hi Bbb23. You checked the relevant accounts but did not close the case here. Does it mean that a clerk will evaluate the behavioural evidence? Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It means it will be looked at by a member of the SPI team or by an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks Bbb23. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Small request

Hello. I’ve come across User:Blueskygreenfield, which appears to be a shared account (at least that’s what the page says). I’m a little unsure whether to tag the page or not, so I’ll defer to your wisdom. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: What wisdom? Seems to me the account should either be blocked as an illegitimate account or nothing. Not sure how it helps to tag it, but see "lack of wisdom". How'd you come across it? They haven't done much except create a draft with almost nothing in it and promote themselves at one article. Since then, almost a month ago, they've been quiet. Maybe they're volunteering somewhere else. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... then I’m tempted to leave it be for the moment. I found it by searching for "our website" in userspace, a subversive tactic I’ve been using to locate potential spam (see my CSD log if you’re particularly bored). By the way, acknowledging a lack of knowledge is a sign of wisdom, I think; maybe something Socratic/Platonic perhaps (I know that I know nothing). 😉 Green Giant (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI

• Special:Contributions/HowDoesItFeeel. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/StumblinD. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/ForresterMax. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/PWKangaroo. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/FWdeKangaroo DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Special:Contributions/PWKittyCat. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

All blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, there are a couple more at the new SPI. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, just saw them, now they're blocked, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And they're back at it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Got 'em before you posted. Why do I feel like I've signed up for a full-time job here? --Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I'm going to be off-wiki shortly, and although I might be on- briefly later this evening my time, I probably won't be able to do anything again until tomorrow morning. If there are more, I suggest reopening the SPI. Another tip: you can add to an existing report as long as it's still open, but if it's closed, please start a new report. You can also try contacting a different admin other than me if you wish. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again! Special:Contributions/ThorsWrench. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MakingPlans4Nigel DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Aggiefan47 sockpuppet investigation close

I appreciate that someone was finally available to take the time to look at the investigation I opened over two months ago, however it is obvious that Aggiefan is the only person active in the 98.200.13.0/24 and 90.200.14.0/24 IP ranges, and closing the investigation without taking any action because the IPs I and others reported, while they were active, are stale now is just wrong. Aggiefan47 is clearly still active, and disrupting WP:BASEBALL pages almost daily. Blocking those IP ranges is necessary (this IP range was also blocked due to his disruptions). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 15:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you for the future. First, reports where the issue is whether to block IPs are often ignored - or ignored until they become stale anyway - by clerks. You may not like it, but it's a fact. Second, reports where there is a great deal of clutter, are often ignored as well. Your report falls into both categories. Next time, whether it's on the Aggiefan47 case or another, don't list IPs that are already stale. List only ones that have edited recently, e.g., the day of filing or possibly a couple of days beforehand. I know you filed this report a long time ago, so my guess (I didn't check) is a lot of the IPs at that time were probably not stale, but I'm just offering generalized advice. If you add any IPS to the list later, you should reference them in the body but also add them to the list so they have the correct template and are visible without poring through the text. If, as in this case, you can list ranges, then do so. Don't list the separate IPs in the range, and don't expect the clerk to calculate the range themselves. As far as I can tell, you could have just listed the two ranges you mentioned above in the list of suspected puppets and dispensed with anything else. Make sure the ranges are sufficiently narrow so as not to cause the clerk anxiety because of potential collateral damage. A generalized rule of thumb is /24 for IPv4s and /64 for IPv6s, but you should always look at the edits in the ranges to make sure they all appear to come from the same person. If you follow this advice, you increase your chances that a clerk will evaluate the report in a timely way, but, as I said earlier, no guarantees. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and I'll definitely take it into consideration should I ever need to file a report on another editor. As for Aggiefan, I will be re-opening the sockpuppetry investigation with just the two ranges listed, as both have been used for disruptive edits today. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Paperwork

Hi Bbb, sorry to bother you, but would you mind logging your close of the Andrevan TBAN appeal under my sanction at WP:AELOG/2018. Appeals of sanctions are typically logged there for future reference (and there are some examples in the AP2 area as well that can be followed.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, but it's bedtime for me. I'll take care of it tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

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.

---

Does this which is supported by this qualify as a TB vio? It doesn't appear that it's ever going to stop. 😕 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Probably best to give Andrevan a little bit of space right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Understand, Neil but it's rather difficult when it seems that everywhere I turn, an editor is either casting aspersions, calling editors with whom they disagree "horrid racists and gullible idiots", or lump summing them in some ridiculous "basket of deplorables", while allegations of Russian meddling continue along with claims that "Wikipedia is a battleground for many bad actors". I've got pretty thick skin, and have managed to repel most of the aspersions, but the constant hammering is wearing me down, especially considering none of the aforementioned is even remotely close to the truth. Lies left unanswered and continuously repeated are eventually mistaken as truth. Whatever I can do to avoid that from happening, I am willing to do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeezus. Smh.... Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

After your performance the other night at the Anthony Bourdain talk page as well as my talk page, I have to ask, Dave Dial: How is it you do such a great impression of a social media troll (and continuously get away with it)? It's seriously spot on. Every single time you go there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered that Guy Macon asked pretty much the same question at ANI. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a very valid question, Atsme. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 13 June 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.

AfD closure admonition

Greetings. You closed down this ANI report with the following: "I would suggest that editors try harder to focus on the content disputes not on each other, and if they simply are unable to do that, bow out and go do something else where you can exercise more self-control". If the suggestion was directed at someone else, I'm sorry to have bothered you. If it was directed at me, frankly, I'm at a loss. That was my very first ANI report (hopefully, the last, as well) and it was the outcome of a lengthy interaction with the subject editor, whose aggressive and hostile behavior I tried to humor and bypass, to no avail. Never self-control was lost. The issue is Wikipedia integrity and not ego; not with me, at least. I'm open to suggestions about what to do when Wikipedia articles are skewered by specific editors with the stated purpose to remove notions labeled "foolish", "blather", etc, when such notions are notable. Attempts to reach consensus (even humor the person) have proved fruitless. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible IP block evasion

I see you have a CU block active on 104.33.80.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which has edited at List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (Brazil). A new IP, 172.58.91.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has now edited that page, and it tripped an LTA filter, so I believe it might be connected to the above case. There's also 172.58.27.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I believe is in the same range. Home Lander (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The range for the two IPs is too wide, so I blocked each one separately for one week. If the disruption continues after the blocks expire, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, will keep an eye out. Should edits from these IPs be reverted (I'm assuming they're the same operator)? Home Lander (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Master account?

I saw this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otomixal. First of all, thank you very much for your quick and excellent work.

I do not know the rules and where to ask this question, I do not know if it is correct to do it in the investigation page and for this reason I am writing you here. I apologize if I'm wrong.

The doubt is as follows: as raised by the user who opened the investigation "Edit history and content suggests that they are sleeper SPA accounts and most likely puppets of another master.", is it possible to know which is the master account? These accounts have done a lot of damage and sabotaged an RfC, so it would be interesting to locate if there are more sockpuppets and who is the master.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 06:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If I had found other accounts, I would have said so. The master is the one named at the SPI. There is always the possibility that there is an earlier master, but I didn't find one who edited in the last 90 days, and no one has named any other account based on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Very well explained, thank you very much! I now understand it perfectly (I have no experience in these subjects).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one?

Hi! You recently blocked PSMRTCH as a sock puppet. Does Marry Swim quack to you too? Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

JE followup

Hey Bbb, I posted some followup comments to that Epstein ANI thread and would appreciate a response. Thank you, Swarm ♠ 23:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I just saw you replied. I'm going to unblock the IP since you have no objection, but will followup with some guidance for them to avoid causing unnecessary drama. Swarm ♠ 23:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Fine with me, and although I did have reasons to block the IP that are not worth going into, unblocking is probably the right thing to do. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I did not see at first that there was an edit war with Power over that section, which makes your 'forced close' of it seem a lot less unreasonable and the IP's subsequent edit warring with you over it seem a lot more disruptive. I may have been wasting my time defending the IP, but assuming there's no evidence of POV or block evasion, the underlying content dispute does appear to be a legitimate one. I'll keep an eye on them to ensure I didn't make a mistake here. Swarm ♠ 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User पाटलिपुत्र

I have pinged you over at User talk:पाटलिपुत्र as you are the blocking admin. I'm watching that page so you can respond there. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Lammiddee4

Could you remove tp access from Lammiddee4, and delete their attack talk page, please? Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) done. Alex Shih (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate that very greatly. One day I hope to buy you a beverage of your choice :-) Guy (Help!) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For that either I'll have to travel to Britain or you'll have to travel to the States, and not even the east coast of the States but the west. Make sure to bring your tolerant wife. BTW, as an "amateur baritone", what kind of music do you sing?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

LovelyGirl7

Hi. I don't think the sock you just blocked is the only one; see User talk:Ponyo#LovelyGirl7 where I've asked advice on what to do next (this is all a bit out of my depth). -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please link to the other IP and the named account?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Turns out the account I saw was blocked; apologies. The IP is 107.77.233.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), if useful I can look further back for more? I don't know much about rangeblocks but I'm wondering if that's possible here. I was alerted by the 'Not a sock' edit summaries on current events for the 17th. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in a couple of days. No point in blocking unless they resume. For a range block to work, the IPs have to be in the same range. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean I don't know how to tell what's in range :P All I know is that seemingly minor changes in IP ranges can result in increases of thousands of users at a time i.e. they can be a Rather Bad Idea if done wrong. But apart from manually hitting geolocate I don't know how to tell anything about an IP just by looking at it. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.107 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one. 88.111.218.107 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The two revisions you just rev del'd

I don't think the usernames need to be hidden... just the revision and edit summaries - is it okay if I fix this for you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Marteau

Hi @Bbb23: I saw from this edit [36] at an article I worked on extensively in the past that Marteau has been blocked indefinitely, and see their sockpuppets listed here [37]. However, I can't find any record of a report, investigation, discussion, etc., and am sure one must exist, since I believe these are always filed somewhere, and Marteau had edited for 15 years [38]. I did see this edit [39] by Marteau right before the block, indicating a discussion was going on somewhere at least. Pinging Guy as well. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. There was no SPI or discussion, and that is not as uncommon as you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One other correction. Marteau's angry retirement comment was 10 days before my block, not "right before".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly read Marteau's note @21:10 8th as two hours before the block @23:19 on the 18th. I'm not contesting the block rationale, evidence, etc., but is there some process or place to find out more about this? Do you advise I not do that, and if so why? Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's comforting to know I'm not the only one whose eyes occasionally play tricks on them. Too much reading when I was a child. I'm not sure what it is you want to "find out more about". If you take some time to look at the behavioral evidence connecting the various accounts, that should explain the blocks themselves - and Marteau's "retirement" plays into this because to the extent the socking is recent, Marteau was apparently extremely dissatisfied with Wikipedia and may have felt self-righteous about violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I did assume that the evidence must be something like WP:DUCK, though I didn't look into it. I had seen Marteau around for some time: we appeared to agree on some US-Russia relations articles, and disagree on US law and order articles. I suppose it's a little jarring to see a longtime contributor suddenly and utterly vanish, with apparently no discussion. Sorry, not trying to make this accusatory: you're not the one who quit / socked. -Darouet (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

little ol' power abusing NaZI me

I guess my range block was less effective than I had hoped.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We do what we can. I suppose if certain people hate us, we must be doing a decent job.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Amen. W/o going N2 details, the irony is staggering.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Just wanted to apologise for the thread removal,
As you didnt comment on the ANI thread I thought you noticed the editor through either my talkpage or recent changes - Hadn't realised it was through ANI so wanted to apologise for that, Thanks for your help with that editor and for obviously reverting me,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

White space vandal returns, again

He's back, as User:2804:14C:123:AE2F:94A2:D5BD:4D54:8E51. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor changes

Hi. I’m sorry for my minor changes on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I won’t continue editing policies. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 17:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Angeliquerock is back

Hi, can you please block User:Britzick? Same editing behaviour as Angeliquerock/Amfithea on Commons, and it seems that *he's editing here as well. Thank you! --Ruthven (msg) 14:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ruthven. @Ajraddatz: Based on my check, please globally lock the account. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Broadcaster/Journalist

Wyatt K. C Davis is a Jamaican Broadcaster and Journalist. He is the founder and CEO/Managing Director of KC Broadcasting Company Limited which owns the Jamaican gospel radio station. He also worked as a radio announcer/journalist at LOVE 101 fm in Jamaica (another radio station) for several years. He has created a lot of impact on the media landscape in Jamaica. There are references to include the Gleaner Company Limited, The Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica and their radio station (www.gospelja.com). Would he be fitting for Wikipedia article as a person (Broadcaster/Journalist)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artieb (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Artieb (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not; otherwise, I would not have deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedbackArtieb (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello. An article was deleted under the name: Hypercharge: Unboxed. Was there any specific reason why it got deleted as I can't see why? Falconik123 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It showed up as a creation by a sock and was deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Apparently, I didn't see the earlier history with you creating it beforehand. In any event, I've restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)