User talk:Bbb23/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Sockpuppet PositiveEM

Hello - you recently finished a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PositiveEM (thanks for that) where the user and his socks were blocked indefinitely. The user is back with a similar account User:Trinbago1868 (contribs) - do I create a new checkuser each time he shows back up or is their a different process? --  R45  ^talk! 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@R45: You don't need to reopen the SPI. I'll deal with it later. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is no sock puppet, How is it ?, Everytime I edit something or contribute to something you guys keep blocking me ?, How's that fair to me...... I edit and contribute to articles in a positive way as you can see at all times, So what is the problem, I'm I not supposed to be a contributor?, Is this not a free site to contribute positively ?, Tell me what or which because I honestly don't understand the reason for blocking my account everytime I contribute in a positive way on articles, I provide appropriate sources, pictures, articles, ect. What's the problem? I really want to know....... I'm I not obligated to having an equal share in the contributions to Wikipedia ?

--Trinbago1868 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Trinbago1868

172.100.212.147

I noticed that you blocked 172.100.212.147 (talk · contribs) following a checkuser. No argument there. I just wondered what issue that stemmed from. There's been a lot of promotional editing lately involving the many subsidiaries of NRDC Equity Partners, which include Hudson's Bay Company, Lord and Taylor, and Saks Fifth Avenue. That IP editor insists on my talk page User talk:Nagle that they're not paid by Saks, but they do seem to be narrowly focused on the marketing and expansion plans of the chain. Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Lord and Taylor COI anon editor is back., or is there another issue involving that corporate family? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: I wasn't aware of the ANI thread or the IP NeilN blocked. Unfortunately, I can't answer your question without running afoul of the privacy policy. I do appreciate the links, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Lord & Taylor is currently semi-protected after a string of IP editors trying to insert the same material. ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy...") [1] [2] [3]. May be related. John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the reminder re: user talk page policy. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. How did you know I like sweets? Much better than beer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

UNISA - Ergun Caner

The University of South Africa is a distance-learning centre. Specifically, it is impossible for a person to be in attendance. The given address for the organisation is University of South Africa

P O Box 392 Unisa 0003

How can I legitimately revise the Ergun Caner page to reflect this fact, and present information nearer to the truth?

My reference is the 'About' section to be found at - http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=3

It reads, "As Africa's leading open distance learning institution, we offer internationally accredited qualifications and have world-class resources that inspire learners to create meaningful futures on their own terms."

To suggest that somebody attended the university for any duration, in person, is to mislead all that come to reference the article.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.174.151 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

God, that has to be the world's slowest website. I've changed the language in the article to read: "In 2000, he obtained a Doctor of Theology degree at the University of South Africa." Essentially, I've taken out the location and while in residence language because it makes no sense based on the kind of university it is. That's as far as you can go with this. You certainly can't say that Caner "bought" the degree. You're entitled to your opinion about the people who obtain degrees from the university, but there's no sourced basis for making such an inflammatory statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Has the university always been a distance learning institution? The cited source specifically says Caner was "in residence" when he earned his degree in 2000. The university's History page seems ambiguous, or maybe I'm just not understanding it clearly. Might want to consider moving this discussion to the article talk page. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: I don't know. Longer answer: the way I worded the material it avoids the whole issue as it just says he obtained his degree there. Three more things. First, the source is hardly reliable as it is an opinion puff piece on Caner. Second, even the source is ambiguous: "In 2000, Dr. Caner received his Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa in residence in Johannesburg." I have trouble parsing that sentence. Finally, I think the whole thing is fairly unimportant for the article, but if you want to raise the issue on the Talk page, go ahead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Altimgamr

Hello. Altimgamr/JasonHaddad is active right now on a number of IPv6s in the same range (2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:422:2BA8:0:3C:9CFD:8101 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:2C35:FDF7:0:25:543E:5B01 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and one or two more, with only the first two currently being blocked) so could we have a range-block? He also posted on my talk page as The Flow In (talk · contribs · count) (blocked by SpacemanSpiff), a user that might yield an IP or two and is interesting since they signed their post on my talk page as Altimgamr, which I see as a confirmation that I'm right about their identity. I have also seen another IP or two over the past two days, but can't find them right now. But he's apparently very active now, after having taking some time off... Thomas.W ^talk 15:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I don't really know anything about this master other than all the work I had to do on your Talk page because of the gross comments. I suggest you reopen the SPI and request the range block. If I handle it, it would be easier if it were laid out there. An alternative is to make the request to a CheckUser who is more familiar with the master, although any administrator can impose a (soft) range block if they think it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the third IP you listed above. That was easy enough to do based on the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Altimgamr was very active in 2013 and 2014, but had been inactive (AFAIK) for a year before this. Please check the deleted comments on my talk page, including the faked "Cindamuse"-signature on one of the posts, then compare it to his apparent obsession with Cindamuse here (where a number of confirmed socks were named "Cindamuse1" and up). The archived SPIs also show a steady use of fake "weebly"-sources, just like in the recent edits, so there's absolutely no doubt about it being Altimgamr/JasonHaddad. Unfortunately most of the people who used to actively revert him have either left the building entirely (like Lukeno94, who is missed) or are far less active than they used to be, so it sometimes feels like I'm fighting a battle on two fronts, beeing forced to spend time and energy on both reverting/trying to stop the socks and trying to convince someone with the tools that they really are socks and should be blocked... Thomas.W ^talk 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

+ a new one today 2607:FB90:2702:3D2A:0:4C:8A06:8001 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same subnet, same type of material, performance versions of a muscle car/sports car that no-one else has ever heard of, and that gets zero returns on Google. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for your troubles. Just let me know when the SPI is ready for me to look at with a list of the IP addresses you know about. Just a little evidence, not much, shouldn't take you much longer than leaving me these messages. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I know, I just feel a bit frustrated sometimes. You know, the grumpy old man part of me showing... ;) Thomas.W ^talk 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry, I know what it's like to feel grumpy myself. If you're just posting messages here to vent, knock yourself out. Doesn't bother me a bit. I thought you wanted to avoid opening the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no problems with filing a report at SPI, other than disliking giving him the attention it brings, I was just frustrated by what I saw as other people here not really believing me, caused by having a report I made at AIV (with one of the IPs) declined, which I'm not used to have. Thomas.W ^talk 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This latest edit of his, which he just made, is a good example of both what Altimgamr does and why he's very hard to spot for most editors here. The bottom section he tries to add is OK, and is supported by the source he provided, while the top section is a hoax, combined with a "source" that doesn't mention Corvette at all, but is only about the Manga show the Corvette version is claimed to be named for. The link to the fake source even includes a car term like "spoiler", making the hoax even harder to spot... Thomas.W ^talk 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

He also likes to create hoax postings on various user-generated sites that he then uses as sources for his Wikipedia edits. Meters (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• SPI-report filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr Thomas.W ^talk 10:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

artist

Yeah, I'm a-trying. I have not quite achieved con-artist nirvana yet, though I got close on User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt.  :-)     As for dragging you into the nudges again, quite seriously, I don't at all think you are inhuman. But I do think that being an arb is an exceedingly trying job, which requires a lot of patience, yet at the same time the ability to not succumb to patter and pressures, of various sorts. That User:Diannaa is resisting my ever-so-artistic-patter, along with urging from a dozen other people, with grace and tact, strongly suggests she would be a great arb. That is a job that needs the ability to think what you think, and stick to it.

  Diannaa has got it, and although you and her disagree about the nuances of the correct way to approach disruption, and the editors around disruption seems to statistically and habitually swirl, you have the same fundamental characteristic as she does: you think what you think, and you stick to it. Arbs are constantly getting pushed from various wiki-factions, trying to influence the remedies. Thus, to be a good arb, you have to have the goal of building an encyclopedia deeply ingrained, you have to know the wiki-policies both broadly and deeply, and you have to stick to what you think.

  In conclusion, not only did I try to get you to run before, I *still* think you should run.  :-)     If you are worried about the timesink, and going poof, why don't you and Diannaa run on a joint ticket, two rock-solid wikipedians seeking a single arb-seat, and divvy up the responsibilities of the work betwixt yourselves, in any way you see fit? (Alternate days; alternate cases; flip a coin; draw straws; editcountitis during the past week; whatever.) Sure, it is a bit IAR, but that is allowed: if we want to have arbcom attract candidates worried about going poof, we need to come up with a way to make arb-ship less of a timesink. That means, in the short-term, off the wall things like two wikipedians running for arbship on a joint ticket; in the medium-term, it means spinning off some of the arbcom duties to other venues (personally I would rather see some kind of community-run reverse-RfA-process for desysop for instance -- purposely geared to be slow as molasses and take a minimum of a month -- with arbcom only handling desysop cases & motions where the evidence was oversighted or where emergency-haste was required).

  In order to have ANY HOPE of getting some arbcom reforms, like the ones I want to see, we need good people to run, right now, in the next 12 hours. So I'm trying to feed Diannaa to the wolves, and already fed The Good Mister Faddle to the wolves. Admin-land will be the poorer, if she runs and wins. AfC-land will be the poorer, if *he* runs and wins. SPI-land will be the poorer, if *you* run and win. But I stick to what I think: you should run, please. Either standalone, or in some kind of multi-candidate-seeking-one-arb-seat arrangement. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you see the solution here, 75.108.94.227? You need to register an account and run yourself! Or are you more the campaign manager type? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I would make a deviously slippery wise and cautious arb, surely... talk about your reformation candidates... but no, I have my sights set a wee bit higher, so you can expect this to be a bluelink soon.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	How about this? You're one of the wheels that keeps SPI moving. Sometimes ignored (cause who looks at tires?) but if you go missing, we're in for a bumpy ride. NeilN talk to me 05:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much but it's unbecoming of me to be petulant. However, as long as I'm in that mood, you have no idea how long the check on that SPI took me and how brutishly complicated it was. There, I feel a bit better.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What, it wasn't just, "SELECT socks FROM magicSockList WHERE sockMaster = 'Altimgamr'"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just way too tired, but I don't get what you said. You're welcome to clarify, but I won't be able to respond until tomorrow as I'm off to bed. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

LOLz. Now I feel better (innocent TP bystander). Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a SQL statement run against a table created by the AI we all know is behind Wikipedia. Hmm, not sure if this "clarification" made it better or worse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely second this - you do some tough, nasty and needed work over there. Ravensfire (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about SPI

Hi. Do I need to submit a SPI case for this guy every time he returns with a new account? Not only this case, but what should I do with obvious socks? Report them to WP:AIV? --Zyma (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your link above doesn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bbb23: I fixed it samtar ^{t} 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, samtar. Zyma, you can in some circumstances request a CU without reopening the case, but I don't guarantee the request will be honored. As for AIV, if the account is a vandalism-only account and has been duly warned, you can report it to AIV, but you can't report an account there based on an allegation of socking. That's not what that board is for.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That board should really be renamed to "Administrator intervention against easily handled incidents". We get all kinds of stuff there. How non-vandalism reports are handled largely depends on how close the patrolling admin adheres to the letter of the "rules". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew you believed in total anarchy. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recently closed investigation

You recently closed this case here [4]. I would like to point out that the following edits by user:D4iNa4 [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9], in the article Slavery and religion clearly shows biased POV edits. It looks similar the changes done earlier by user:Bladesmulti, which is a confirmed sockpuppet of OccultZone, in the following edit [10]. Now, a new user, user:Capitals00 is making the same changes as , as seen here [11]. Xtremedood (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For countering disruption through great SPI work. GABHello! 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a kick out of your comment at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Srlsly Bbb, three barnstars in five days? You're making the rest of us look bad ... Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The latest Rolandi+ sock

Hi Bbb23, this newly-created account appears to be the latest Rolani sock [12], from the contribs and date of creation. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account

Hello. I think Bonadea's blanking of her user pages has something to do with a paid editing scheme she's been looking at, as I wrote on ANI (and there's more about what I think here, including a couple of diffs). I feel strongly about this both because I've had only positive encounters with her, and because I hate to see the paid bad guys win... Thomas.W ^talk 20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history. I just put one piece of it to bed. The rest can be handled without a CheckUser. Frankly, I thought the smileys next to her comments indicated that the account wasn't compromised. Rather, she was just being playfully sarcastic. Still, it's a bit unusual to remove even the headers from your Talk page. She can, of course, always restore the pages, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaistakausar.pk

I was hoping you'd just archive it rather than nuke it. I apologise for trying to save anybody the effort of reinvestigating their relationship. Bazj (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. Archiving follows a strict structure based on a script, and comments can't be archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Labyrinth CCG

Sorry, I did not know I made that last section without logging in. I am recreating it, because it keeps throwing an error saying "this edit is not constructive", and all I was doing was adding a comment, or at least that is how I thought I should add a comment (::comment text).

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to understand the 'Credible claim of significance' thing that caused the Labyrinth CCG page to get speedily deleted. I am trying to create a video game stub describing the game, similar to these:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cloudbuilt

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Blackguards_2

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Video_game_stubs

but it keeps getting deleted. Are these stubs that I am designing it after also supposed to be deleted? What information do I need to include in order to prevent instant deletion? InvincibleWall (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any way you can make that into an encylopedic article. If I understand properly, it's a video game that has not yet been released and is being developed by a non-notable company paid for by crowdfunding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see ARCA

Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about article probation dealing with men's rights topics

The White Ribbon Campaign article has had quite a bloc of info added to it sourced to A Voice For Men. I was wondering if this means the article now falls under the restrictions of said article probation and thought I'd ask an admin. Ongepotchket (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The material that was added to the article was not neutral and either unreliably sourced or unsourced. Even the material that had a reliable source did not hew to the source. I've corrected it. I imagine it will be challenged. You seem to be keeping an eye on the article. You should have no hesitancy to prevent such material being added. As to your question, the answer is probably. You have to ask yourself if it has material that is related to men's rights, not always an easy question.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Huccha Venkat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Huccha Venkat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rajannamysore (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

CK Morgan

Hi there Bbb. Directing this query to you as you just closed the latest in the ongoing series of BarbaraJohnson/CK Morgan sockpuppets. Do you think there is any chance CK Morgan and it's various permutations can be salted? True, every time it is deleted another version with different punctuation pops up, but still.... Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, JamesBWatson disposed of the sock and closed the SPI. I simply archived it. Also, I notice that James has been a deleting admin on these pages, so it might be better to direct your question to him. Frankly, if a sockmaster clearly knows how to circumvent salting, salting each permutation is generally a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: When I deleted the latest copy of the article, I decided not to salt the titles, for the reason Bbb23 says. In fact, once an editor has shown that he or she is willing to change the title of an article to try to avoid detection, it is if anything better not to salt titles, because it's easier to find re-created copies of the article if they are allowed to appear at titles that can be watched, rather than forcing them to be made at new titles that we can't predict. This time, for example, I discovered the latest copy of the article because Norvoid moved the article from a new title to one which had already been used, and which I was watching, which could not have happened if that title had been salted. Actually, on this occasion Norvoid also opened a new SPI case, so it would have been dealt with by someone, even if not by me, but another time if the article is created at a new title and stays there, it is perfectly possible that nobody will notice it. There are situations where salting can be helpful, but this isn't one of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Yes, I do see your point. Thanks for the explanation. So, do I take it that moving that article to CK Morgan was a good idea? I said otherwise to Norvoid, but I see now that I may have been mistaken, and if so I want to go back and set the record straight. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: As I said, this time it probably didn't make much difference, since some admin or other would have dealt with it at SPI anyway, but I have known cases in the past when moving an article in this way has been helpful, as it has called attention to an article which might otherwise have not been recognised as a re-creation of a deleted article. So yes, I do think it was a good idea. Basically, we are dealing with a sockpuppeteer who is deliberately using an article title which is unlikely to be expected, to avoid detection, and moving it to a more expected title thwarts that plan. (By the way, when I posted above I deliberately linked Norvoid so that he/she would see this thread, and I'm doing it again now, so "going back and setting the record straight" is probably not necessary, but of course you can do so if you prefer to.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24, 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002

Hello. Nikita Rodin is an old "friend" of mine who almost always tags his own socks, even before they're blocked, and reports himself at SPI in order to rack up as many blocked and tagged socks as possible, no doubt to have something to brag to his equally juvenile friends about. Which is why I'm not adding this to the SPI. Special:Contributions/107.155.78.242 geolocates to Austin, TX, but is Rodin, judging by the contributions, including the self-tagging, so it's probably an open proxy. Special:Contributions/188.32.104.125 geolocates to Moscow (which is where he's now, after previously having been in Saint Petersburg, Russia) and is Rodin (as clearly evident by the contributions, including adding a sock tag to their own talk page), and Janger IN (talk · contribs · count) is with all probability also Rodin (note the obsession with sock tags, adding or modifying sock tags on both their own user page and the user pages of two previous Rodin socks, Mya2ru and Mya2rud, #1, #2, #3). He seems fairly harmless, mostly engaging in tagging himself and editing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but his socks can't be totally ignored, because he occasionally goes on a high speed vandalism spree, moving other people's user pages around, blanking articles etc etc. Thomas.W ^talk 15:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

107.155.78.244 is a colocator, meaning generally anyone with a credit card can buy their services and hide their true location. Socks should be blocked. Perhaps they shouldn't be tagged per WP:DENY, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked just because at the moment, they haven't done anything clearly disruptive. He wouldn't be the first sockmaster that brags about the number of socks he's created. Most masters have some sort of agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

He has now started archiving SPI-cases ([13], [14]). Thomas.W ^talk 08:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Time tables

User:Annoy_Chakraborty has been adding time tables of trains to lot of pages. As per WP:NTT those are not required. I had this on his talk page. But same kind of edits again yesterday here.--Vin09 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

His contributions - here.--Vin09 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is something I've been involved with before, you'll have to remind me what it is. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you're coming to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. I thought any admin can look into it. Sorry to take your time.--Vin09 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23

Hello,

I need your hel sir or madam,

I have been gone for a while, I started editing again last night. I made a vote on ani to oppose topic banning for to w17. I read over all the info and saw that W17 looks to have made a staremenr from his mobile phone. The dude clearly asked. In his. Statement that has a. punter proposal for a topic ban against editor savktuaryx. I tried to adjust the subtopics heading to let his asking for a topic ban for her on all the Allie c articles. The dude has the to put forth a to ban proposal as swell. Could you please look art he headings an d make this fair to all. Hopefully not but those there might say you are wrong too. I am washing my hands of this altogether thank you I hope you time to at least make the topic headings equitable Zpeopleheart (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi's latest sock

[15] Edit warring to re-instate his previous sock's edits. Can anything be done with this guy? He just keeps creating new socks. Doesn't even bother creating a user page anymore. Athenean (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Concerning User:Excelse

Checkuser has shown that Excelse and Related0877 are confirmed sockpuppets, although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [16]). It is likely that Excelse has also used this IP in order to remove the same content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and by reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. For a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, he is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see the many false claims made in this arbcom case, which has now been closed by the administrators), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. To my mind, this user should be banned or placed on probation for sockpuppetry, edit warring, making false claims and gaming the system. His edits were clearly disruptive as he and his sockpuppets have only blindly removed content from Wikipedia articles - content that was part of the said articles for several years. Other users were of the same opinion. See, for instance, this revision history, which shows that, according to User:RA0808, the repeated removal of content from the Memphis Mafia article was unexplained. Furthermore, despite of this warning by administrator EdJohnson, Excelse has continued to remove content that is not in line with his personal opinion from article pages (see [17]), and it is to be feared that this will also happen in the future. See also his justification on User talk:Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't "ban" or put editors "on probation" based on sock puppetry. Excelse has been blocked for two weeks for sock puppetry. I don't intend to increase that sanction unless there's evidence of continuing sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lagoo sab

Bbb23,

I believe the evidence posted on the SPI page should be more than enough, but in any case, me and Smsarmad can also add his IP range which he extensively used and abused since at least early 2012 up to including mid 2014. Including at least 10 or 20 of the IP's itself. Can either list them there on the SPI, or mail them to you. Its basically this that what DoRd and DeltaQuad meant. Please don't hesitate to let me know. Oh, and if you want even more evidence of Krzyhorse22 with previous socks and Lagoo sab, or perhaps with the IPs, let me know as well; got much more left behind hands, but I thought it'd be overkill otherwise as we already have plenty there. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless something new comes up, I've had my say at the SPI. I won't be the person evaluating the behavioral evidence. I'm familiar with the IP issues. There's no point in e-mailing me anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok thats perfect. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hmm bon appetit.

Drmies (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb23, don't even think of putting him in the chili!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about feeding him some (how do we know it's a him?) and watching to see how high he can leap.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Tail straight up, confidently stepping out, ready to chat up the ladies. Clearly a him. Don't feed him too much, you don't want to render him catatonic. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Another sock

Created the same day as the other socks and just restarted the edit-warring at Sukhoi 100: Valitro. Dr. K. 06:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Not quite sure to do about this, if anything. The editor in question has been editing and commenting in a particularly aggressive and combative manner at the Umpqua Community College Shooting article and at the article's [talk page] as IP User:72.198.26.61. I've wondered for a few days if the IP was a block-evading sock, turns out he's just a sock. An undeclared one until today. Because of the way he's been so combative and aggressive, though, it does make me wonder if he was intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny by editing anonymously due to his recent 24-hour block for edit warring [18]. He's now claiming he didn't realize he was logged in when he admitted to editing from other accounts? [19] I'm confused and don't know if there's been a policy violation or not (it seems there has). That's why I'm bringing this here to you. Pinging MSGJ as the blocking admin. Thanks for taking the time, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no violation of the sock puppetry policy. The user has even noted on their user page that they are currently editing logged out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it permissible to edit while logged out if one is not honest about who they truly are? If so, I don't understand why some doing the same are blocked for socking. I'm not trying to create drama, just better understand what is a confusing situation to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It is permissible as long as there is no abuse of the multiple accounts. I see no attempt to deceive or trick other users in this case. See WP:ILLEGIT for details of what is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Query relating to a CheckUser block

I have received a talk page message from an IP editor claiming to be Babitaarora, whom you blocked as a result of your CheckUSer at a SPI which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander/Archive.

The claim of Babitaarora and Chander is that they are respectively brother and sister, who have used the same laptop computer, thus accounting for the CU evidence. Of course, I am fully aware of the "my little brother" excuse for sockpuppetry (and in this case it is indeed the brother who is supposed to be younger), but even so, that does not rule out the possibility that this time it may be true, so I have extensively examined the editing history to look for behavioural evidence. I do not doubt that all the other accounts you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but Babitaarora looks rather different. There is indeed a considerable overlap of what articles have been edited, more so than would be typical for two siblings editing independently. Nevertheless, I also saw some very striking differences in ways of expressing themselves and using English, and some striking differences in use of edit summaries. For example, skimming down Chanders's contributions history, I was struck by the frequency of edits where the edit summary was just (uw), which he used when creating a new talk page to post a warning. In his last 250 edits, he used that edit summary 52 times, but Babitaarora has never used that edit summary, at least not in her last 1000 edits. In fact, when Babitaarora has created talk pages to post warnings, she has produced edit summaries of the form (←Created page with '==October 2015 == {{subst:uw-vandalism1|}} ~~~~'), which accounts for 17 of her last 250 edits, while Chander has never produced that type of edit summary. It is way beyond any reasonable possibility that such a degree of difference would be just chance coincidence from an editor using two accounts randomly, so either the accounts are not the same person or else it is someone putting in a remarkable effort to make it look like two editors, in a rather obscure way that he or she could not reasonably have expected would be checked. I have also seen more examples of types of edit summaries that tend to be more common for one or other of the accounts, but those are the most striking and extreme examples.

In this sort of situation, I like to check talk page posts to look for similarities or differences in ways of expressing themselves. Chander has a very poor grasp of English grammar: for example, after being blocked he wrote "Why you blocked my account without notifying me about this or asked me about the multiple accounts or paid editing issues before blocking? Why you calling me a paid editor when you know that I'm a whitelist user and has done 6K edits on thousands of articles?" Babitaarora, on the other hand, has a much higher competence in English, as a quick look at her talk page will show.

Another thing to look for is evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. I can find none. Even when the two accounts have edited the same page, I have not seen a single example of doing so in abusive ways, such as edit-warring in tandem, or supporting one another's opinions in discussions to give a spurious impression of independent support. In fact, if the two accounts were used by one person, then I can see no reason why the editor has bothered to do so.

It looks to me very much as though all the other accounts that you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but that Babitaarora may well really be his sister, as she claims. Can you let me know what you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

James, it may be a while before I get back to you. I have too many irons in the fire right now, and I'm feeling stretched. I'm also trying to prepare for the holidays, and, typically, I'm nonetheless spending far too much time on-wiki. You know how that goes I'm sure. In the interim, I'm curious about one thing. Let's assume Babitaarora is indeed this other user's sister and unrelated to Chander (that part is tough, btw, and I'll have to look deeper into the technical evidence to see if that's even plausible), what assurance do we have that she can control her computer in the future?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I edit Indian entertainment articles and we need her in Wikipedia. She cannot stop her family members from using the computer which may not be her personal computer. In Indian middle class families, parents don't purchase separate computers. She has become an innocent victim.The Avengers (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I do indeed know, only too well, what it's like to be spending far too much time on-wiki while you have real life things that need to be dealt with, so I won't be upset if it takes a while for you to get back onto this. However, for when you do have time, I will say a few things in answer to your question.

1. Are we dealing only with a block on the Babitaarora account, or is there also an IP block involved? As far as the block on the account is concerned, whether it is blocked or not will make no difference to whether someone else can access the computer and the internet connection. Of course, it could make a difference if he is likely to use her account, rather than just use the computer without having access to her account. However, for the sorts of reasons I outlined above, it looks to me very much as though the accounts have in the past been used exclusively by different people, without use of the Babitaarora account by both editors. Of course, that could change, but without any evidence that it is likely to do so, we have to assume it won't: we don't keep editors blocked on the basis of speculation that they might do something.
2. If there is also a non-"anon only" IP block which you know about and I don't, then lifting that could perhaps let the other editor in, but since Babitaarora has already edited from an IP address without logging in (as she did when she posted to my talk page) she evidently has access to an internet connection which is not IP-blocked, and probably the other editor (if it is another one) can do the same. I therefore don't see that unblocking her account is very likely to make a difference to her "brother"'s ability to edit.
3. Generally speaking, we try to avoid blocking an innocent editor because of the faults of another editor as far as we can: that is why IP addresses are very commonly blocked only for a day or two, even when the abuse is sufficient that had it come from an account there would have been an indefinite block. The present situation is very similar: we should try to avoid blocking one editor because of another editor's actions if we reasonably can. You can see CheckUser data which I can't, which in most cases would encourage me to defer to your judgement. However, in this case I don't think that makes any difference, since it is admitted that the accounts have used the same computer on the same internet connection, and the only issue is whether it was one person or two people using that computer on that connection. On the basis of various observations, a sample of which I have given above, I am convinced that it was not just one person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I see that you have not got back onto this, although since you posted here you have made nearly 100 edits, including making some CU reports. I do understand that checking such things takes time, and if you find this case a particularly difficult one, requiring an amount of time you can't afford at present, perhaps it would be better if I ask another CheckUser to look at it instead. Alternatively, since I don't see that CheckUser tools are relevant (since, as I said above, use of the same computer and internet connection is not in dispute) I could ask for a review on an admin noticeboard. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised, James. I remember one case (don't ask me which one) where you took a very long time to make a decision. I'm sure you didn't stop editing during that time frame. There's absolutely nothing urgent about this. My guess is I'm going to conclude that the account should remain blocked, but that's just an instinctive reaction, not a reasoned one. As for asking another CheckUser, I doubt that any other CheckUser would want to get embroiled in this, but you're free, of course, to do so if you wish. Taking it to ANI is a waste of time. This is a checkuser-account block. ANI can do nothing about it, and you'll probably just trigger the ususal free-for-all that ANI is known for.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost everything you say there is obviously true. However, I don't understand why the CheckUser issue is relevant, since the use of a single computer on a single internet connection is not disputed: is there something else other than that which CheckUser evidence can show? As for ANI, I usually avoid it like the plague, and I am surprised that I even suggested that. I suppose what was going on in my head must have been something like "This seems to me to be a clear-cut case, but Bbb23 doesn't see it that way. Rather than put Bbb23 to a lot of trouble when he or she has made it clear that he/she doesn't have much time available and is reluctant to put a lot of time into this, is there any other way of getting the matter settled? Hmm ... CheckUser block ... so I would have to ask another CU. ... Hmm ... well, since the fact that all accounts used one connection is not disputed, what would there be for another CU to do? What is really needed is another opinion on whether the reasons I have presented for thinking it is two people are valid, which is not a CU issue, so quite likely another CU wouldn't really be much help. ... Hmm ... well, if there were consensus at a community discussion, that would decide the matter." However, if that was more or less what went through my head, I was of course guilty of unclear thinking, for several reasons, including the fact that a community discussion does not have the authority to overturn a CheckUser block.

OK, as you say, this is not really urgent, so I'll leave it until you have more time. Sorry to have pestered you about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You want me to stop editing Wikipedia?

What is this? I know you're very busy but your actions indicate that you hate my guts. Give me a break. That guy admitted that he's creating sockpuppets and using proxies. If he emailed you and asked to remove my edits, it means he is what I suspected. Why are you biased toward me?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You got one thing right: I'm very busy. I don't know you well enough to hate you. You've made your case that LouisAragon is a sock. Plastering your allegations over and over everywhere you have an opportunity to do so is disruptive. If you continue, you risk being blocked for disruption. So just cut it out so that doesn't happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

RAGHUallen

Hi B, curious about this situation: User RAGHUallen, a user who'd been causing some promotional difficulty at Indian cinema articles, was blocked by Diannaa the other day for copyright violations. This guy Himesh Kuttiyal popped up after not editing in almost 2 months to request an autoblock be lifted. He was subsequently blocked be Elockid. The users have quite a bit of intersection, and frankly I've felt for a while that I'm dealing with a sock ring in Indian cinema. I'm curious about sleepers. Should I create an SPI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think there are sleepers, then you should open an SPI and request a CU with an explanation as to your reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy of me here. Thanks for the assist, per usual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ban evading sock at Helpdesk?

Hi Bbb23, I just reverted 86.147.209.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the help desk as they appear to be Vote X For.. who kept disrupting AN/I - could you have a look and block? -- samtar ^whisper 16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Already blocked, looks like I'm late to the party -- samtar ^whisper 16:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bap Homaker

Given what's on this user's talk page, you should probably revoke their talk page access. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He kind of repeats himself, doesn't he? Revoked and page deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

I was about to compile facts for an SPI, but I thought I'd try to check with you first. I believe that User:Sdjkl1 may be LTA banned sockmaster User:HarveyCarter. Their edits to Anthony Eden, Ramsay McDonald, Appeasement and [[German declaration of war against the United States {19431)]] look very much like the editing style of User:Gafbns, User:LanceCaldwell, and User:CharltonChiltern - all sockpuppets of HarveyCarter, and all (I believe) CU blocked by you. These editors add "facts" to the articles, some of which run counter to the normal consensus among historians, but all of which are totally unsourced. They are presented as positive declarative statements, some of which are interpretative, but none of which ever have a source. When one asks for sourcing, the "facts" are repeated ad nauseum on the talk page, often with exactly the same wording, but almost never with a source.

I wondered if you could take a look at least at the behavior and see what you think -- although in looking through the SPI archives, it seems that with HarveryCarter there is almost always more than one sock found when a CU is run. If you think my sketch of the problem here is insufficient, please let me know and I'll work up something more extensive for SPI. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed.  No sleepers immediately visible. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you. BMK (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or...

...is the SPI table failing to update again?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not for me, just its usual lag but it seems to get there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I won't switch it to back up. Every time I open a "CU requested" SPI, you've already actioned and closed it. Efficient as usual I see. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is we should never switch it to backup as it creates a bigger mess than whatever mess the current one might be in. Anyway, unless I do something tomorrow morning, after today you can action as many as you like. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hasn't the backup remained unupdated since June or something? Remind me to hassle DQ about it next time I speak with her... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's my recollection. I remember your putting in the backup a while ago and then reverting youself once you realized the state of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked in a different browser and it appears to be a combination of a caching issue on my end combined with a longer than normal lag. On a separate note, I'd invest in these if you don't have a pair already. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your break

I did not see a sitewide notice pointing to a discussion to determine if there was consensus for your break. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This break is totally against the policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Abortion case clarification request

The clarification request is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

CU doubts

Hi! I don't quite understand the technicalities related to CU check being performed in SPIs. But I noticed that at the Chander SPI you could fetch out a lot of accounts even though they were not reported as suspects. I think that's possible through whatever tools you guys use. I now have a doubt that while doing such a check, are only non-blocked or active accounts checked? Or are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?
Why I come here is that the Chander case was a surprise to see many accounts with high number of edit counts. Incidentally, they happened to be editing same genre of articles, of Indian film and television which were favorite with Noormohammed satya socks and also Vibhas Kashyap socks.
The problem here is that this isn't a fanboy editing selective pages but ranges to so many pages and with so many accounts involved its difficult to base any case on behavioural evidence and many well-meaning established editors think that this is all paid editing of PR firms. Hence wanted to check my doubt. I understand you are away now, so maybe some of your tps can help answer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to answer your question but I'm not sure I understand it. With regard to your question "are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?" The answer is generally no. Per this, the Checkuser tool only provides data on recently active accounts. Checking accounts that haven't edited in recent months yields no data.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks for the reply. Two doubts now; so if the info is not retained for longer time, does it mean that its possible that Chanders who were SPIed last month could very well be Noors (last SPIed in July 2014) or Kashyaps (last SPIed in May 2013)? Also, does it overrule that Noors and Kashyaps are related as both these cases started in July 2012 and had a good amount of overlapping time period? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is some technical data regarding the older socks in the checkuser wiki, or retained in the brains of previous checkusers, then the only way to link accounts to a stale sockmaster would be through behavioural data. Is it really important to go back that far though as long as the current disruption is not ongoing? Blocked is blocked no matter which tag is on the sock's user page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For your return

I altered the block conditions on a CU block you executed to remove talk page access by the user. Is that allowed? See 66.188.93.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks Tiderolls 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here. As a CU, I don't mind if a CU block is changed to disallow talk page access. It only becomes an issue if the duration, autoblock, or anon-only status is altered, as those elements are usually set for a particular reason. Revoking talk page access when it's abused is fine. Just be sure it's easy to note that it's still a CU block. (As you've already done.) Mike V • Talk 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, that was my operating logic. I just wanted to get a CU's view. Still interested, Bbb23, if you have other points to make when you return. Tiderolls 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tide rolls, I have no other points to make. Mike V's answer was well put. Thanks for checking, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Zenironman

I'm sorry; I know you don't like admins without checkuser ability declining editors with a checkuser block, but this one annoyed me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I apologize if I gave that impression. There's nothing wrong with any administrator declining an unblock request from a CU-blocked account. BTW, you weren't alone; you were just the first. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Bbb23 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi Bbb23. I am wondering if you could take a look at User:Kritksh because I think it might be User:Kritaksh who you blocked back in November for being a sockpuppet of Kartiktiwary. The username is practically identical (only the difference is an "a"), and the edit focusing seems to be Siya Ke Ram and other articles edited by the sockmaster and their socks. It could be just a coincidence of course, but it seems like a duck to me. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is Krit Krishna from New Delhi. I can't understand what did you say.i will first read more about it then i will give you an appropriate answer. Kritksh (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Radoezikova

Hi.

You were the last admin who dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radoezikova/Archive, so I thought I'd come to you with a question. This person made a huge number of fantasy Eurovision and Big Brother pages in their user space, all of which have been deleted for using Wikipedia as a web host. I noticed at Big Brother: The Boss, the user:Radoslav Tsanev account made a bunch of edits. He added hiss fantasy material and then did some edits, and finished by removing the material he added to leave the article looking like it hadn't been really changed. Doing it once can be put down to an accident, but the next day... He added back the fantasy material, along with one day's worth of fantasy game play. After some more of these edity, the material was removed again like before. I just quickly looked at another set of edits in article space from this account, and this shows that this behaviour is not in just one article.

This person is well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and doing multiple times in more than one article shows deliberate intent. I suspect that this person is trying to use the history function of Wikipedia articles to host his fantasy game material.

So at last my question: Is this something that needs to have revisions deleted to remove them? If so, I'm willing to go through the contributions from all the accounts and check them.

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@Whpq: In case you wonder why people do things like that there was an editor a couple of years ago who uploaded tons of copyrighted images (for which they were later indeffed), added the images to articles, along with some reformatting of the articles, and then reverted their own edits again after a few minutes. When asked why the editor said that they "reshaped" the articles to look exactly like they wanted them, and then created pdf-files/books of them (using a built-in function here) before reverting what they had done. Thomas.W ^talk 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've seen other editors use the history function as permanent storage for various material that would be otherwise deleted, but that has always been in user space. This is the first time I've seen it in article space. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Whpq: I don't think I'm the right administrator to ask about this. I don't rev/delete edits very often compared to some administrators and when I do, it's not for this kind of reason. I would suggest one of the two approaches. Take it to another administrator who has more experience in this area, or take it to AN (better than ANI for this kind of request I think). Maybe one of my talk page admin stalkers will interpose an opinion, although that hasn't happened thus far.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at an unblock request at User talk:Rishika.dhanawade. You placed a CheckUser block on the account on 19 October, on the basis of sockpuppetry with User:Digvijay411. You reported your CU findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive, but you did not think that Rishika.dhanawade/Digvijay411 was the same person as TekkenJinKazama.

Rishika.dhanawade now admits to using Digvijay411 as a sockpuppet, but promises not to repeat any of the "mistakes and wrong editing habits". I am inclined to consider giving the editor another chance, and with that view I have invited the editor to give more explanation as to what "mistakes and wrong editing habits" he/she thinks he/she has made and will avoid. However, can you give an opinion on the unblock request? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has not been fully forthcoming. In response to your question about what he would do to avoid the same "mistakes", the user did not reply but instead created a version of an already-existing article, Sehban Azim, on his Talk page. Rishab Sarpotdar (talk · contribs · count), an account that was created on November 21, 2015, and has only a handful of edits since, "improved" that article on December 15. There is also overlap on other articles between the two accounts. The two accounts are  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI stuff

Hi, Bbb23. Thank you very much for this. After viewing the lengthy list of open cases at WP:SPI, I was sure that case wouldn't be looked at for a month or more. Thanks for breaking speed records! Happy, stress-free holidays to you! Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) P.S.~ I pondered your "despite your labeling 23 a random number" quip, and wondered what I was missing. I did some Google searches and eventually recalled the 23 enigma, and the significance of that number. So you were correct; it's not such a "random" number after all. Satisfied that I had solved the mystery, I thought no more about it, and came here to leave a 'Thank you' note. It wasn't until after I clicked 'Save page' just now that I looked again at your username... Facepalm Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's very funny. You're right; I was referring to my own username. But hey, I never heard of the 23 enigma. Trust Wikipedia to have an article on just about anything. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user

This user is back [20]. New account [21] Misdemenor (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Hey, thanks for helping out while I was away. Much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you don't leave again. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet - thanks for the quick work

Nice work. I've been alerted to a Buzzfeed article about what seems to be the same crew active this summer. Going to look through these people's contribs in case of any more hoax articles, but right now everything seems to have been already deleted. Blythwood (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow - sockpuppet Logicequalslogical participated in deletion discussions on non-notable musicians - and often voted delete! Sounds like they were trying to pick up experience at sounding convincing. Damn these guys are good. Blythwood (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings mixed with an SPI

Hi Bbb23. Best of the Season to you. Unfortunately, the Holiday cheer is somehow disturbed by the work of socks who do not seem to have much regard for it. Case in point. Still, I would not have bothered you with these news, had the three-month CU limit not been so close in this SPI. If you have any spare time your intervention would be much appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you want a check against Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · count), the 90-day limit is not that close, but I'll see what I can do (no promises). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I calculated it to be the 30th of December. So it's about 9 more days. Given the holidays, a nine-day limit seems a bit tight. In any case, thank you Bbb23. Dr. K. 02:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Three months is shorthand for 90 days, so it's actually December 29, not 30. When it gets down to the wire, I usually just test it to see if it works because I get an error if there is no data. If no one else grabs it first, I'll try to get it to by December 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 for the precise calculation. 27 December sounds good. I just hope I didn't add too much to your holiday workload. Dr. K. 07:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb23 for the unexpectedly fast resolution. True to form the sock could not resist reverting and your quick action prevented further disruption. I know it is too much to hope that other socks will comply with the spirit of the season but at least this sockfarm is not likely to cause any further holiday disruption in the near future. Much appreciated and sorry for the added workload. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stale??

How long (or short) is the period Check users can look back? The Banner talk 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is 90 days or 3 months. I think there are ways to preserve information about an account though it is not standard practice and I believe it is used for long-time sockpuppeteers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

...And a happy New Year!

GAB^Hello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best of luck in the new year,

GAB^Hello! 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You still around?

Looks like we may have a new BiKaz sock [22]. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Fortunately for Wikipedia but not for me, I have insomnia. Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

And the same to you! Thanks for dealing with that. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti (album)

I think Anti (album) might need protection because multiple IP addresses are abusing it, but I am not 100% sure. CLCStudent (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

99%? :-)  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Favour

Hey Bbb23, since you seem to be around, could you have a look at the history of Naga, Cebu, and this section on the talk page. It seems pretty clear cut to me (note that Unbuttered Parsnip was recently blocked for 48 hours for 3RR, and looks to be doing it logged out to avoid a reblock). I have semiprotected the page, but would prefer to have a checkuser look into it. I would do it myself, but my CU bit is still in the mail I suppose. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Directed here from IRC request @Kelapstick: This falls into the duck category, and traditionally CU wouldn't be ran in this instance unless your looking at a range block. Also, we are unable to link account to IP publicly in most circumstances. I would go ahead with issuing any further blocks on the account. That said I did look at rangeblock feasibility...lets just stick with page protection for now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Your warning

It is not my intention to edit war. However, User:XPrintGirl has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information I added to the Benedict Cumberbatch article, even after I requested that she desist. I have provided reliable sources to back up the edits I made, whereas XPrintGirl has so far only engaged in counterproductive revert warring. She has also now falsely accused me of making edits she made herself.[23][24] -OneLittleDragon (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your intention is. What matters is what you do. You have been warned. I suggest you take the dispute to the article Talk page(s).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What about what XPrintGirl? Repeatedly removing reliably sourced information from an article after being asked to stop is edit warring as I understand it. And then falsely accusing me of edits she herself made? This really isn't encouraging me to contribute here, because basically what's happening is I am being scolded for attempting to contribute reliably sourced information and then defend it from unwarranted/unjustified removal, while the actions of the person removing reliably sourced information without justification and throwing out a false accusation are being overlooked. I feel as if my hands are tied here. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours

Hi! Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours/Archive#20_December_2015 and this ISP Delta Quad blocked another ISP [25] has popped up to continue the conversation and same reversions. Pretty clearly all the same editor. No doubt the "head of department" will be along shortly. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: He sure does get around, doesn't he? Unfortunately, compared to you, Drmies, and others, I know so little about the subject area (if it were classical music, it would be easier). In any event, those particular IPs have been stopped, but he may find a new range. I've put Power of Women, but semi-protection might be a better way to go if this persists. Feel free to let me know if there's disruption I miss. Thanks and a belated Merry Christmas.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thank! And a new one to keep an eye on - nothing bad so far, but knows a lot about Wiki-ways for someone with a dozen edits! Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I noticed the user as Power of Women is on my watchlist now, but I too found the edit innocuous and didn't probe any further. Nonetheless, I checked now and have a question. Take a look at this. Isn't that the sort of thing CoMC would do?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not (fortunately) at all familiar with him, but I think sandbox drafts are typical. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Johnbod, Bbb23 was referring to his tendency to start a user-space draft on a painting with a single line of information. Like this one, this one, and this one (differs a little because of the included references). We've seen the behaviour in several confirmed socks, so its considered circumstantial evidence in investigations into the editor. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Perfect, Chris, two blocks coming up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This one is a possibility. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthomelanoussprog: Indeed. Could you please go through the new pages and files he's created and tag them with WP:CSD#G5 if you think they should be deleted? I'd hate to delete them if they're actually helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There's two created articles, both of which seem okay. The files are probably okay as well (all paintings as far as I can tell, with one labelled as fair use). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Db-g5

Can I kindly ask why? --Vituzzu (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It was originally created by Oldsettler and G5ed in April 2015. It was recreated recently by the IP. Do you know of a finding that the IP is a sock of Brunodam? I realize that you're far more familiar with this master than I am, so I'd sincerely like to understand your reasoning. If it makes sense to me, I'll delete the article. God knows I have no sympathy for socks and I frequently G5 pages, but I do apply the criterion fairly strictly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaving the brackets this one applies here too ^^

We generally are a bit reluctant to link users and IPs but well, it's sometimes needed.--Vituzzu (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's helpful. Deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No pb, since I'm not a local checkuser nor sysop and I don't want to publicize checks I take into account the need of further explanations. Have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask are u the page admin??

Who are u?? The page. Admin ?? The person who owns this page or someone who thinks he owns my identity .. Bcos .. FYI .. I am Andria D'souza .. The Vj , Rj and actress Andria D'souza And If I see rubbish or wrong articles written about me I have the right to speak .. Or else .. I would claim a defamation case against you and Wikipedia for making my account without my knowledge or consent and for tampering or defaming me by writing n conveying wrong information to people reading about me

I have the right to speak about my image don't I?? Officialandria (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please do not make legal threats on Wikipedia, as this is against policy. Thank you -- samtar ^whisper 10:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your block of Alwayssmileguys

It might be worth removing talk page access to go with your CheckUser block. This edit added a claim that admins have ganged up to crucify him, a crucified Christ image, and what appears to be a a threat to continue socking. He also insists on blanking the sock block notice and unblock requests. Meters (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The threat and crucifixion can remain, but the declines had to be restored per policy. I did that and revoked talk page access. I only came back on-wiki for a moment. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The only change I made was to restore the declines. The rest was just fodder. I see someone else has reverted the whole page now. Meters (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case it's not terribly important. The user's talk page access was revoked twice. The other administrator and I did it at almost the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

And thanks for all the good work you do here, Bbb. Best wishes from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, right back at you. And can you please tell me why it's in the high 30s here? That kind of cold belongs somewhere else in the country. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can shed no light on the whimsies of nature. After a run of ridiculously mild days here, we're at last getting something a bit more seasonable. But still it's remarkably nice--no snow on the ground, little in the forecast, and flowers have begun to pop. After last winter you can almost hear a collective sigh. Only four more months to go. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanx!

For [26]. Kept several people busy :-) And Happy Holidays to you.Poepkop (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

PS And we have a follow up of the blocked one (same pages, similar pattern): [27]. Poepkop (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the message, Bbb23. Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Another portion of Thanx for you! Poepkop (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome everyone. I have a headache. I feel like I'm swimming in weird edit patterns lately. Here's hoping things improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Swimming in weird edit patterns" sound cool ;-) I hope your will feell better soon, the vandals "know" it is Holiday season. And actually also a portion of Thank you to User:Callmemirela and User:Dat GuyWiki being busy working against that persistent guy/girl IP (Hope I am not forgetting someone?). So, would anyone care for mayonaise or ketchup with that? Poepkop (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Simple wiki

Hi Bbb23, I wondered if you had seen this [28] on the simple wikipedia, I cannot rollback on the simple wiki (no meta rights). Maybe I could just delete but I do not know what you'd want (and if you actually created that page yourself or if IP did so for this purpose). Poepkop (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of it but never looked at it. I rarely pay attention to my Talk pages on other wikis. Not to worry about it, but thanks for your concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Poepkop (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A previous sockpuppet block and a request.

A while ago, you indef blocked User:Peacebigline and User:Wikedpluri for using multiple accounts on Lee Man-hee and Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony - there is another account there now Special:Contributions/Robertseo, making the same edits. I was just going to file a sock puppet report, but I'm sure that even if they get blocked, they will come back with a string of new accounts, so I have a request. Could you put some form of protection on those articles, please? Even semi protected would help. Socks are less effective on articles that require confirmed accounts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked Robertseo (talk · contribs · count). The account is not confirmed to the master but to one of the other accounts involved in the original SPI. I don't see how I can justify semi-protecting Lee Man-hee (the new account didn't edit the other article at all). There's been very little disruptive activity on the article. Roberseo's first edit was on December 16 after a gap of no edits by anyone since November 12. And then Robertseo made only two edits, the last of which was on December 20. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to semi-protecting articles that are being attacked by socks, but this one doesn't even meet my threshold.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, it's appreciated. (but probably not by Robertseo) I will keep an eye on the articles in question and revert when needed. There is another editor who drew my attention to the most recent edits, so there are more than just my eyes on the articles. Thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I normally have a huge admiration for the work you do but this kind of comment in answer to a perfectly reasonable technical question does not encourage me at all to report or block any future socks when when I come across them. I can understand now why so many people describe the SPI cabal as a Walled Garden. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I tried very hard to lighten the revert with that edit summary. Apparently I failed, at least with you. My revert had nothing to do with the discussion itself. It was purely a procedural revert. Generally, whenever you substantially alter the structure of an SPI, you make it difficult for the future of the case, including archiving the SPI, which is done by script. Sometimes, the script simply won't work. Many times I have had to fix the structure so the script will archive it properly. Perhaps I should have followed up with you on your Talk page. You had other options to achieve the same end. One was to reopen the SPI with the account you mentioned as the suspected puppet. You could then say in your comments anything you thought was pertinent, and clerks and administrators could respond normally. Another would be to initiate the discussion at the Talk page of someone familiar with the case (clerk or other administrator). I apologize for not explaining that to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Benn Jordan sock

I don't really touch sock investigations but thought you might want to see Special:Contributions/88.194.149.117 in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicchief007/Archive.  czar 22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Boy, they were on a tear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Duck: Special:Contributions/106.186.123.246 czar 16:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Thanks, and clarification request

I appreciate you closing the EW report against me as 'no violation', as well as semi-protecting the page. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to undo my precautionary self revert at this point?

I also want to question your statements that such reverts of IPs, while exempt from 1RR, are still subject to 3RR. This seems to contradict a recent ArbCom ruling that followed the block and subsequent unblock of Huldra for making 10 (!!) such reverts on As'ad AbuKhalil - see the ANI report and follow-on Request for clarification where the drafting arbitrator of the 30/500 restriction stated "As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it", and another arbitrator stated "Huldra's actions "" (she reverted 10 times in rapid succession - see [29]) When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The request for clarification is still in progress, so in terms of what exists now, except in cases of vandalism, 3RR still applies. As for whether a revert by you would be "appropriate", I have no comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So why was Huldra unblocked ?!? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you simply pay attention to your own conduct in this area. Don't wikilawyer the rules to death. Just use some common sense and err on the side of caution when it comes to reverting. Not to be rude, but I have nothing more to say on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

it would help if admins are consistent about the rules. Can you explain why an editor that reverted 10 times in a few hours was deemed "not in violation of the restriction " ?When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Unconstructive opinionated edit

I recently undid an unconstructive edit of an opinion on List of Sweden international footballers. Do you think a warning is necessary in this case, and if so what level as the editor has received two warnings (in July and August 2015)? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me, but I'd definitely leave a warning and I'd do third level. The IP should have been warned for other edits they made. They haven't made a single constructive edit at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you because I look at the delete and block logs to find active admins. Should I leave the warning or are you going to do so? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You should do it as you undid the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The two warnings given were Level 1, and the user hasn't made any unconstructive edits for a long period of time, therefore do you think I should still do it as a third level warning? Furthermore, the unconstructive edit on the List of Sweden international footballers page was made in November. Thanks for your help and quick responses. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to do the "right" thing, but I already stated my reasoning earlier in this conversation. Sometimes, it's not just a procedural thing but a commonsense thing, and that's something you may learn as you gain experience. I issued the warning. You've been sprung. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your assistance. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Egaplaicesp is Tirgil34

Due to the futility of mentioning this fact at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, i'm posting the evidence here to get your direct attention. MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat[30] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language.[31] BronzeAgeYeniseian marks his edit at Karasuk culture[32] exactly like an IP at Bey.[33] Both of these IP's belonge to the range which was blocked as belonging to Tirgil34 in May 2015.[34] Egaplaicesp restores[35] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy[36] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug[37] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem.[38] It's about time that the Egaplaicesp socks are tagged as belonging to Tirgil34 so that their edits can be removed as per WP:EVASION. On a sidenote, Happy New Year! Krakkos (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Bbb23, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Alwayssmileguys & Patrick Patterson

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys/Archive, the sockmaster's original draft of Patrick Scott Patterson (now salted) has showed up at Patrick S Patterson by the new user Kaleshkalu1. Duck? czar 05:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Patterson himself apparently has had some issues with WP recently. And references Special:Contributions/SuperPacMan, if there is any relation to the case. czar 05:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you (and those watchers!)

I hope you all have a great year, despite all the recent SPI stuff (which is depressing). Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

New sock ‎Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 as a return to contributing. Can you block him/her? (also reverted edit as well). 115.164.216.90 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think the IP is MariaJaydHicky?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Alwayssmileguys & two new editors

Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you could have a look at two new editors who have popped up. Sadiazaki2015 started on Dec 29th and has made edits to both the article and AfD for Jibin which was created by Alwayssmileguys in addition to creating the article Gina_Messina_Dysert which has then been edited by user Femme111 as their only edits. I know it is a little thin but considering Alwayssmileguys' comment about coming back I thought it might be good to bring to your attention. Mrfrobinson (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the two accounts is related to the master. I added a third account (Spencer122) to my check, and that account and Femme111 are confirmed to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor interaction tool

Hello Bbb23,

Hope your holidays and New Years went well.

So my editor interaction tool hasn't been working. It would be helpful for this recent SPI I filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola#06_January_2016. Does it work for you? Is it like this for everyone? Ciao! Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the Editor Interaction Analyser to be very unreliable. I almost never use it, more's the pity. This tool is generally reliable, but it is limited to two users and the results list isn't as usefully formatted. In this instance, it shows 52 pages that both users edited.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a staggering figure to say the least. I'll have to add this bit of information to the SPI. Thank you Bbb23. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I also find this VERY strange. Look at the user pages of both these accounts: [39] and [40]. What the hell is going on here? It's almost identical. Also, NovaSkola awarded this guy with awards the same way he awarded his other sock Yacatisma with. And it's NovaSkola that posted it directly on Nicat49's userpage! How is Nicat49 not blocked already?! Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Polopaladin

WP:Block evasion: A past user who you just block has come back with a new account User:Polopaladin03. Herman Jaka (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but another User:Polopaladin04 just been created. Herman Jaka (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick CU check request

In the first paragraph of his talk page, Supreme Leader of Wikipedia admits to being the recently blocked Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, and the blocking admin suspects that they're both aliases of Kingshowman; could you check these two accounts and look for sleepers and related IP activity? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:سعد_علی_خان

Hello. I noticed your 3RR-warning, but there's also a report against them at WP:AIV for repeated political vandalism on Gilgit-Baltistan (repeatedly changing "India" to "Pakistan", moving Jammu and Kashmir to the other side of the border...), so would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You're better off letting it sit. I wouldn't block based on an AIV report. I almost blocked them for a combination of disruptive editing and edit-warring but decided to give them one final warning on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

He did some more of the same after I warned him, so he's blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: 82.132.227.172

Do 82.132.227.172's edits meet the criteria to be hidden from public view? Some of their comments push the boundaries, in my opinion, such as the nazi comment and the other comment making fun of an administrator's perceived penis size. Amaury (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not for me (there's a lot of their crap spread around, so it would be a fair amount of work), but YMMV.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fartsalot

Thanks for reverting the editor and revdel'ing their edits. If this keeps up, would you mind semi-protecting my talk page in the future? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I can do it anytime you wish, including now. Just let me know in case I miss it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I will. Things seem fine for now, but it wouldn't surprise me if the editor returns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Another sock

Hey Bbb23. That guy with that mixed-up SPI case whom you blocked today, just created another sock and started editing.[41] 110% duck. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

120% blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Here are two more accounts (one is already blocked, just needs the according tag), as well as an obvious IP used by the master. [42]-[43]-[44]. Also I'm pretty sure this is another account for it instantly started editing back when Zarahus was blocked with a very similar editorial pattern. [45] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What a pain in the butt. Several blocks. I'm intentionally not tagging any of these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's sticky. Oh well... a happy belated New Year btw! Hope you had a good one. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(tps butting in) -- A lot of the time tagging them just encourages them. I wish we had a way to tag a sock in a way only an "established" editor/patroller can see. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Antandrus: Ahh, my favorite music administrator. Good to know you stalk my Talk page. Tagging is a mixed bag. Some CheckUsers almost never tag, but many of those tend not to work SPIs. Others tag except in the most egregious cases when it's clear that tagging encourages the master. Being a documentarian by temperament, I tag more often than not. In this particular case, the masters haven't been worked out, so tagging would be problematic. Anyway, a very happy new year to you and to LouisAragon, a skilled sock-identifier.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got your reasonings and they're quite logical and right I admit to both of you. Yeah some mechanism like that would be great, who knows, maybe in the future. Time will show, as with everything. Thanks for your wishes Bbb23! ;-) Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, I think I got another one here. Reinstatement of the same bogus like earlier blocked socks,[46] as well as the username. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ParkShin... socks

On the sockpuppet investigation page, you appear to have listed one puppet, JenMercadoHeras, twice. Either I have missed a subtle distinction here, or one of these should probably be removed. RolandR (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct and I've removed the dupe. It isn't really that important. What I had to go back and make sure was that I didn't forget to include another account but instead cited the same one twice. That would be more serious. But I checked my notes, and the list is correct. You have a good eye for detail. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my

circumventing the formal channels, but as you appear to be working now, please have a look at Madaya, Syria article. As is clear from the edit history, the article ought to be blocked, either completely, or for anonymous and newly registered.Axxxion (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock alert

User:Jonjon893 is back with another account. Here's his latest: Special:Contributions/Jonathan_Sydel -- 50.29.199.144 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit the archive again. As for your edit to the Talk page, you have to follow the instructions at WP:SPI if you want it moved to the report itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll go my own way from here and only focus on normal articles. I'm glad you told me it was illegal for any non-admin to do things like tag or modify any user pages. Now I know the truth what went on and no one will ever do it again. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, have you opened an SPI case on the account I was mentioning before? Because IPs cannot report to the case since the page is semi-protected. User:Ponyo got the same message before but he's on a temporary leave of absence due to personal reasons. User:Jonathan Sydel is the one I'm trying to report beyond the indef-blocked User:Jonjon893. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've already told you, there are instructions at WP:SPI on what to do on the Talk page. Nothing will happen unless you follow them. That said, if you have trouble understanding them, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fear nothing. Ponyo is back. He nabbed the user and blocked him indefinitely. So looks like it's all over now. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Bbb23! Thought you might be interested in the note at User:AlF6Na3/sandbox, in case you haven't seen it already. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrankEM/Archive. GoingBatty (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wael Sharaf page deletion

Hello

I wrote an article about the Syrian actor Wael Sharaf, and it's was deleted by Bbb23 and I don't know the real reason behind it, because I can find other articles about Syrian actors on wikipedia. Therefor I want and answer for my question and I hope we can bring the article back again, because he is one of the most popular actor in the Arab world. By the way, I'm in touch with the actor himself and I have all rights to share information about him.

Regards

Wisam Shakir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisamshakir (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This account never created an article I deleted. Perhaps you're thinking of another of your accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wisamshakir is referring to Wael Sharaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I never deleted its recreation by Wisamshakir. I deleted another version of it in March 2015 created by a different account, although undoubtedly the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg

Whose sock was it? I had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to suspicion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I mainly had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One can't be sure from a CheckUser perspective because the data goes back only so far. With that in mind, they are the sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you point me an admin who specialized in neologism?

There's an person, user:NearEMPTiness, who has a sideline in making up words, adulatory COI auto-(and family)-biographies, and hyperspecialized usages, who has again put a neologism as the title of a new article, Trolleyboat.

As even a casual glance will show, this isn't a standard English word, and the few uses found are for something else entirely, a morphodite half-breed of a DUKW and a streetcar. Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't a clue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. Is there someone who specializes in wp:OR? That's the underlying problem, in Wiki-ish. Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

50.29.199.144

Hey B, what do you make of this guy? I saw that you reverted at least one of his edits a few days ago. It looks to me like he's going around flagging sock accounts as globally locked. I notice some gravedancing in his past. I suppose stuff like this could be helpful, but a very weird area of interest. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I didn't just revert him. I blocked him and then based on his promise to behave unblocked him. I've just blocked him again for two weeks, and I'm not going to unblock him this time.

Do you have any success with mass rollback? The last time I used it, which was quite some time ago, it was awful. I'd like to rollback all of his tagging regardless of the merit of it. Examining each edit is a waste of time. Can you do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolled it all back. One remains--he created a talk page related to a sock investigation. I'll just leave it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Oops, I didn't mean you to roll back all of his edits, only the ones related to sock puppetry. Ah well, not the end of the world. I deleted the Talk page because it related to the tagging issue. Also, I had already rolled back one by one the tagging ones after I replied here because I got annoyed when I learned more about him. BTW, what do you use to do the mass rollback, and do you find it works well? Can you do it selectively?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL—Ahh, communication. :) I've inadvertently just caused another editor, Yankees10 the extra work of reverting my reverts, presumably because some of the edits made by the IP were sound. Sorry Yankees10! Just so we're on the same page, I used User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. Before I became an admin it was useless to me. I'd click it and then have to click through each edit individually. It does work OK now, although sometimes it doesn't rollback everything. Sometimes that's because an editor might change X to Y in one edit, then Y back to X in the second edit, (no net difference) but sometimes it's because the tool jams. No selectivity, unfortunately, and I really wish it prompted me for an edit summary, so I could clarify, "Mass rollback of disruptive IP's edits" or some such thang. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, I'm bothering you again. I previously asked for a CU to link user WillShowU to WikiBriefed. I'm no longer convinced that they're the same person. However, based on some editing patterns, I now think that the master for WikiBriefed could be AniceMathew. (Both seem really chatty and condescending in edit summaries, both tend to issue edicts about references, their edit summary typography is similar [excessive and misuse of ellipses] and so forth.) The question is whether or not the most recently identified AniceMathew sock, RameshNambiath edited recently enough (August 2015) for there to still be enough data to make the link? I'm also going to look further into the Ambeinghari accounts to see if there's a link. WikiBriefed's behavior is peculiar enough that I feel like he's a sock of someone, it's just a matter of getting through the soup. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RameshNambiath is stale, but Ponyo blocked based on a combination of the checkuser log and behavior. But don't leave a post for Ponyo until she's back on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sarah_Barlondo

You don't like the citation? It's a quote from her, it's insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a quote. I see an outrageous description by you that is a clear WP:BLP violation. Also, Facebook is not a reliable source. If you persist, you risk being blocked as has been made clear on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look, she said it: https://www.facebook.com/mohammad.hamad.75/posts/1028656247193421?comment_id=1028672027191843&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this SPI

Hey Bbb23,

Someone else randomly just closed this SPI even though absolutely no evaluation has been made yet by any moderator or any SPI staff. Is it going to be done anytime soon? I can guarantee for 110% that those accounts are linked together, if only someone would read through the extensive evidence provided. Therefore I would like to ask for it to be re-opened until someone at least can look at it for once. I was waiting all the time for SPI staff to evaluate it, and now it just got closed without any evaluation or any comment on the material or whatsoever. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Richwales has been an SPI clerk for longer than even I was aware that SPI was a thing. You could probably ask him about the close and inquire as to whether he'd like to reopen to case or evaluate the evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 09:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim!: How dare you call SPI a "thing"? Everyone know it's a thingamajigger. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim:, hey, thanks for your recommendation; I just did. :-) If only someone would read through it...especially those parts where I put his diffs right next to those of the previously CU blocked socks and the master himself. If Krzyhorse22 is not another sock of Lagoo sab, then all the previously CU blocked socks mentioned on the page should be unblocked, basically. Just to show how immensely compelling the evidence is. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I closed this SPI because no one had done anything to it in over a month. If another SPI clerk wants to reopen and re-evaluate it, I certainly have no objection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richwales:, the thing is; it (the evidence) has never been evaluated, so it can't be "re-evaluated" in every sense of the word.. Or course no one commented on it anymore as we had done our part and it only needed SPI evaluation, something which never happened. Yet it got closed. What else does the SPI staff expect me to further comment on it? Place another 50 diffs while no single comment has been regarding the earlier 50 diffs? Just to keep the "convo" alive? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If some SPI clerk wants to take a look at this SPI, with a view toward reopening it, I will not be offended. @Bbb23:, @Vanjagenije:, @Mike V:, @Salvidrim!:, what do you think? Is there some reason (not obvious to me) why no one wanted to touch this case? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richwales: Fixing a ping to a previous post will not notify anyone. Salvidrim!, consider yourself pinged.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to add; it's as if everyone is just evading it, to just get the material not evaluated. I mean, so much time has passed ever since I completed filing all evidence there. Sure, it's some reading (aka "effort"), I won't deny, but still. Kinda unfair regarding the time and effort I put in it to just to close it without any action. Especially as the sock for 100% passed the behavioral duck test, as seen in the provided evidence. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I rarely do full-scale behavioral evaluations since I've become a CheckUser, and the evidence in this particular SPI is long. It wouldn't suprise me if its length (as LouisAragorn says "effort") isn't playing a role in its being untouched (we are human after all). Also, it's not necessarily true that no one has evaluated it. Someone may have done a partial evaluation and not been able to make a determination they were comfortable with. That would happen in the background, and no one except the evaluator would know it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Most likely Bbb23. Many options are possible. Another one could be that perhaps I should've put the dead giveaway diffs more at the top, instead of all the way down, or towards the way down. Its some 50 diffs after all, and some of them are of rather top quality, while others are more of the "generic" material that clearly links all accounts together. For example, these diffs listed down here, are some of the more neat ones, and they are listed pretty much all the way down. (I'm just linking them here once again if you don't mind, as they might spark some further interest from other SPI staff)

 Removed

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the case and wrote my comment. I agree with the closure. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanja, I've archived the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If the SPI staff for sure thinks that the provided evidence is not strong enough, then obviously I won't dispute that. Idk, especially regarding the diffs I placed here on Bbb23's page, I don't think I've ever seen anyone before on Wiki literally reinstating such specific comments by a well known master without actually being a sock him/herself. And not even mentioning the very specific type of slurs as seen in the case, amongst others. That's why I also said that basically Fareed30 and Mohd Rfus should be unblocked, if Krzyhorse22 would be supposedly unrelated to Lagoo sab, as in my opinion there is simply too much overlap on multiple fronts. Furthermore, it's not the first time the user in question gets linked to Lagoo. I believe this was the third time. Oh well, I would like to thanks everyone for the effort. As the saying goes, sooner or later they all get caught anyway. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dfunk006

Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at and provide your view at User_talk:Dfunk006? @Kuru: says you've expressed other concerns so your input would be good as the blocking admin, especially since it's a checkuser block. only (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How can I reopen a sockpuppet investigation? I want to reopen this. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI. Follow the instructions for opening a report. When you enter the master's name, it will automatically reopen it for you. You just fill in the rest as required (alleged puppet or puppets, evidence, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song)

User:VegasCasinoKid has asked for a deletion review of Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Anhinhhhd SPI

The phone number 1 800 235 6302 appears to be connected with http://windowsithelp.com/ - would it be an idea to add them (and the UK number 0-800-086-9133 too) to the filters? The name Lalit Singh also comes up with them, but there might be more of that name that aren't involved. This is widely spammed. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Sorry for the belated reply. I don't know much about edit filters. Probably better to ask someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And there was me thinking you knew it all... I did something to a blacklist once, but what and how I can't remember. I'll try JBW - he probably knows a man who can if he can't. Peridon (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Z Naik

You reverted an edit by an IP editor. The change made by the IP editor was as follows:

• (Original) Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because (he believes) other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 5 instead of 2+2=4.
• (Changed) Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because (he believes) other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 6 instead of 2+2=4.

The source cited says:

I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what's the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6?

In my opinion the IP editor made a good edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's about as trivial as it could be, but we should hew to the source. I didn't go to the trouble you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Userfy?

Hey, can you userfy this for me in my userspace? I'd like to see if I can work it into something. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Montanabw/Karuna Hospice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest Rolandi sock

Hi Bbb23, can you check the following account: Lostrigot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Dec 31st [47], created just three days after the most recent Rolandi sock was blocked [48]. Edits similar articles, e.g. Panagiotis Kone [49] [50]. The new account's name, Lostrigot, sounds very similar to the Laestrygones, creatures from the Odyssey, a subject Rolandi had shown an interest in [51]. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: That was a lot of work. The account is  Confirmed to Rolandi+, along with a few others, but in deleting the newly created pages of the socks, I came across another sock of another master (they share certain things in common behaviorally), and I had to deal with that as well. I gotta go rest. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your hard work. Btw, is there anything that can be done to prevent new socks from this guy, like a rangeblock or something? He just keeps creating new ones all the time. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian

Hi, just checking to see if this is true? Did you give permission or is it a new sock of Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs)? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, there sure is a lot of commotion over there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you know something I don't?

I asked this at the general admin noticeboard but didn't get an answer: Is it allowed to make requests like the one I made of AmericanDad86? I want to do things within the etiquette but I can't get much information on what it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it's not allowed. I said so in my edit summary when I reverted it. Even if it were appropriate, how could he do what you asked? He can't go to AE without socking. He can't say anything on his talk page because he doesn't have access to it. You'll have to find support elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Neumont

Thanks. --JBL (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal from User:M.srihari

Hi - this was the next in the queue, so I took it and thought I'd run it by you as the blocking admin. He seems to have given you a couple of gray hairs. ;-) I'm not impressed with the appeal, but I'm open to the standard offer if he agrees to not sock and to conform with copyright policy. Let me know your thoughts. Katie^talk 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Heh, they were a bit contentious on their talk page, weren't they? I agree that they can request an unblock in six months with the limitations you expressed and with my doing as much of a check as I can at that time regarding continued socking. I don't think we should promise an unblock, just that it wouldn't even be considered until six months have elapsed. When should the six months start in your view, and how would they request it (their Talk page access is revoked currently as you no doubt know)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It may not be a coincidence that he's asking for unblock now, six months after he was blocked in July, but it's possible. Can you check to see if he's socked in the last 90 days? If he has, the six-month clock starts from the last incidence. If he hasn't, let's say it starts 90 days from today, which would make six months where we've been able to check for certain. Is that possible within technical and policy limits? Katie^talk 21:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I can, and did, check. I found no evidence of sock puppetry in the last 90 days. However, the check is close to valueless. First, the user hasn't edited since July, even on his Talk page (he can't). Second, the user agents he was using back then are very common, so I'm going to get a fair number of false positives. Finally, there's a reasonable likelihood that he's upgraded his environment since then, and if so, I would have no way of knowing what it is. And even if he continued to use the same browser and a similar OS, then those new user agents would also be common. All those disclaimers aside, it's not fair to penalize him for any of this, so I suggest we start the period 90 days from now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't be very useful but you never know. I shall notify him to contact UTRS again in 90 days. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets with no investigations casepage

Hi Bbb23. I know you're a regular at WP:SPI, so I wonder if you could answer something for me. I regularly patrol/post at WP:UAA, and every so often I see a name with some variation of "Deez Nutz". It turns out that User:Deez Nutz was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dick Witham, but there is no investigations casepage for this individual.

Looking at Special:CentralAuth, I can find a slew of names with the "Deez N*" or "DeezN*" pattern that could be potential socks. Some have been blocked for username violations, others not. No one appears to have raised any concerns that these could be socks, so is it worth opening an investigation at this point? --Drm310 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This stuff is older than god. I have no idea what accounts you're looking at, but I wouldn't do anything unless they edited recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Drm310: I've seen a few of them get blocked (there's a long list of blocked socks in their sock category, even though most socks aren't tagged), it's a case of denying recognition. There are lots of cases like that... Thomas.W ^talk 18:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

These accounts are very unlikely to be socks - deez nuts is a meme. See the entry on Urban Dictionary. They're reported to UAA because they're a meme. People choose the name because it's a meme. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Py0alb

Hello. Sorry to bother you with this but there is a new discussion at WP:ANI under the above heading. This makes reference to a formal warning which you issued to Py0alb a couple of years ago and you may wish to take part given your prior involvement. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Bbb123, and thanks for your inputs to the ANI. Py0alb has now raised this AfD. He has not informed anyone who has an interest in the article. I have raised certain questions about his nomination as, in addition to the non-communication, he is evidently trying to "lead" readers into accepting his view of the merit of the citations and he is in fact deliberately misleading them. I have never before seen anyone do that with an article's citations at AfD. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is. Not a big deal. He's not required to notify anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously untrue

I will apologize in advance for bothering you with a rather trivial question, but I want to be certain I understand this statement correctly:

"I read through some of the tortured discussion between Screwjack1981 and Jytdog, both in English and German, as well as a similar discussion with the puppet. I'll refrain from using strong language, but it's all obviously untrue." [[52]]

When you say "...it's all obviously untrue," you mean the statements made by Screwjack1981 and his/her Medidog1951 sock puppet, when he/they related their personal biographies?

Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Xtremedood

Despite your warning[53], Xtremedood continues to make frivolous SPIs against me, he just did at which I have marked for deletion as well. Capitals00 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting the problem to me is fine. Tagging the SPI for deletion was not appropriate and was rightfully declined. I've blocked Xtremedood for a week and closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Travis Alexander

Are you sure there shouldn't be a comma? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Travis_Alexander&oldid=prev&diff=701438997 MattSucci (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but, regardless, I've reworded the paragraph because it was convoluted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

IP harassment

Hi Bbb23, I don't suppose you could run a CU on a set of IPs that have been harassing Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs) on their talk page? The messages are related to WP:ANI#Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz making multiple personal attacks and a dispute at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and there's some suspicion that the IPs (which have never edited that article) represent a logged-out editor. At the very least, a rangeblock would help keep the IPs off his talk page and avoid outing anyone.

• 66.87.120.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.87.120.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.87.121.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.87.121.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks in advance. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid a range block isn't feasible.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bummer. Well, the user's talk page is now semi-protected, so that's good enough for now. clpo13_(talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Human3015

FYI - a new user is accusing you of being a sock. --Cahk (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is Xtremedood, or else why he[54][55] would be edit warring at the same pages that were also excessively edited by Xtremedood[56][57]? Even edits are same.[58][59] Capitals00 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to be popular. I've blocked the user and deleted the SPI. Cahk, thanks for the heads up. I wasn't the only one with CheckUser permission, though. Ponyo has had it longer than I. Capitals00, it's not Xtremedood.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeat of the game... cont'd

Hello Bbb23!

On 18 October of last year, you intervened on my talk page [60], and I believe you may be able to help in the situation developing, I am suspecting, with the same individual, at the Louis XVI of France article. Please check last edits of yesterday from here [61] to here [62]. Method, style, English, plus an obsession of pushing importance of overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August [63].

Please note that I did not revert or continue to edit the Louis XVI article, as I do not want to reproduce the situation we were caught in at the Marie Antoinette article, which lasted for months, with unending discussions on the talk page[64] as the article was being held hostage: one of the reasons I am declining to go to the Louis XVI talk page & get caught in same situation with same individual: I refuse to enter his game.

Note also that same individual signs in with a new name & works only on one article, quickly turning it into a battlefield. His notes on my talk page (Marie Antoinette & Chartres) plus the one you removed show what he is capable of.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: You were correct to come here rather than to continue the edit war. You're also right about Michelbassil (talk · contribs · count), which is  Confirmed to Aubmn (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad that, thanks to you & other administrators, I learned how to handle such situations. Thank you again & best wishes for 2016. --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 - Reporting six (6) new socks of same, this time at Marie Antoinette article, beginning on 20 January 2016 at 23:14

• Haretbeaut
• Amchitramia
• Numediacarthage
• Comterebuilt
• Tillypage
• Newqueen

From here [65] to here [66].

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock Newqueen now at Louis XVI page [67]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All the accounts you've listed above are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged, as well as Samfrodo (talk · contribs · count) and Thomasnau (talk · contribs · count). I've also semi-protected Marie Antoinette for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the above & also for checking on articles I had not seen yet. --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 - Newly signed-up sock Newqueen2 and his work [68] [69].

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

S/he's back, as Georgeparry22 (talk · contribs) and as Blueindigo23 (talk · contribs) under which s/he vandalised Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (a Holocaust article) and left a message on Blue Indigo's talk page. NebY (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Quickly blocked and reverted by Acroterion - for which, thanks! NebY (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, Acroterion, NebY - Thanks to all of you. --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Now as [[User::::Blueundigo3|:::Blueundigo3]] ([[User talk::::Blueundigo3|talk]] · contribs). NebY (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, I'll expand my watchlist. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Returned to Vel' d'Hiv Roundup article [70] [71] under new sock name BLue Undigo2

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously open war: 12 reverts within half an hour. Too bad some people choose vandalizing as a pastime.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlueUndigo4

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've dealt with the latest one while I was raising an ANI report. Thanks. NebY (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@NebY: Not quite. I blocked the latest one because of your report. Not fun, is it? The individual operates at a rapid clip.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good to know that reporting at ANI was worthwhile. As for fun, I do have the comfort of knowing I'm one of a growing number dealing with hir. NebY (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now as BlueUndigo8. NebY (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When first faced with problem a few months ago, I mentioned - somewhere at either Aubmn investigation page or the talk page of Marie Antoinette (?) - that de.wiki does not allow the edits of newly-signed contributors to show, until reviewed & accepted by a regular contributor, and after quite a number of edits - over 50 - have been accepted: then & not before, newly-signed contributor can edit without "supervision". If adopted at en.wiki, this method would make the present problem with Aubmn & his colony of socks impossible. Method might not be 100 per cent vandalism proof, but it would be a great tool against signing at Wikipedia only to vandalize.

Just a thought...

Thank you to all of you for your concern.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhys SPI

My apologies for wasting your time on the Hawes SPI. Either I somehow did not realize they were already blocked, or it did not show properly. GAB^Hello! 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. The puppet was blocked after you opened the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it seems I must have read the time wrong or something... GAB^Hello! 01:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

IamRDOfficial

Hi B, I'm getting a funky vibe from IamRDOfficial, and looking through the edit history here, I notice that there are a ton of indeffed socks. (I don't know if you use User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js, but it strikes through the names of blocked users. Very useful. And I'm seeing a sea of blocked accounts.) Based on the name "IamRDOfficial", I started looking at some of the socks and found Rishika.dhanawade, which would be a smart choice for an sockmaster candidate based on the "RD". I also noticed that after being indeffed, Rishika.dhanawade started using their talk page as a sandbox to flesh out an article on Mukta Barve, which by no coincidence was also edited by IamRDOfficial. I'm cool with indeffing and filing a perfunctory SPI, but I'm not sure whether I should start it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishika.dhanawade or at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander. I'm a little bit confused about your findings. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rishika.dhanawade and IamRDOfficial are  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a nice result fur shure, but who's the master? (for my edification) Thanks B! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was self-evident from my comment. There are two masters you're "confused" about. One is Chander, and the other is Rishika.dhanawade. That was why I said who IamRDofficial was confirmed to in my post. Clear now?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yessir. Thanks. Sorry for being a lunkhead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't be a lunkhead. I don't have friends on wikipedia who are lunkheads.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Awwww.... :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lennieteague04

Spotted this one as I had one of them on my watchlist from CSDing their nonsense pages. You might want to check Beastboy2004 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as it's only showing 1 year, instead of indef. I was just having a quick scan through contribs to see if there was any obvious vandalism remaining to be reverted, and spotted it.

Thanks for all the hard work on SPIs. Regards, Murph9000 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000: Wow, that went right past me. I don't know that I've ever seen a one-year block for a named account, excpet perhaps as a result of a violation of arbitration sanctions. Thanks very much for catching it and bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He's baaaack!

New SPI report

This was shorter than the usual cycle. Jeh (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Strawberryswisher

The user has involved the same editing as User:Strawberrygirls and User:Pistolplay4. 123.136.107.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@123.136.107.118:  Confirmed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sabotage

Hi Mr. Administrator

Please Check this IP's History and it actions like this (look at Summary) and other edits. And If it is possible Block it thank You.World Cup 2010 (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in several days.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Curiosity

Can you explain the block at User:My Motherland? There was no SPI about it, just curious what you saw. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure. I just was more curious about what makes that user a sock of the other user? Did you CU them? Was there behavioral evidence? I really am just curious here as it seems to have came out of nowhere. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There was behavioral evidence that justified running the CU, and, as you can see from the tag on the person's userpage, there was technical evidence that confirmed the relationship. It's not even unusual. An account is blocked for sock puppetry and then creates another account. Unfortunately, all too frequent an occurrence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes: it can happen when an account is blocked as a sock without further warning. This can happen via email to avoid tipping the suspect off, so it does appear a little surprising sometimes. I was in an arbcom case once when the filer, WeldNeck, got blocked as a sock. It's a little depressing to have editors you bump into exposed as socks, but I guess it's for the best. GAB^Hello! 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For tireless good work on SPI cases. GABHello! 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive

When I tried to compare the editing pattern of some new accounts with confirmed socks of ELreydeEspana I realized that some closed cases are missing (23 April 2015, 13 May 2015, 14 June 2015). Was this revert an accident? JimRenge (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Reverting wasn't a mistake but it looks like I removed far more than I had intended. I've restored the material to the archive. Please check to make sure it looks okay to you. Thanks very much for catching it and bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SunMatchKol

New account I've just blocked for, frankly, weirdness. Contribs are creating an LTA page for user:Никита-Родин-2002 and then creating an SPI about himself including CU request - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SunMatchKol. Can you take a look, thanks. Nthep (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like DoRD has dealt with it. This master is a strange duck (pun intended). They disrupt and then report themselves and then complain that they were blocked, all this in Russian and unintelligible English.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Никита-Родин-2002, so I don't know if SunMatchKol is related, but the account they reported in the (now deleted) self-named SPI is definitely Никита-Родин-2002. The LTA page should be deleted if SunMatchKol is actually related, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

SunMatchKol is confirmed. I've tagged it just to be clear because it had a sockmaster tag. I've deleted the LTA page. There seems to be a rash of these. I'm not sure if I should be reporting them all to meta for global locking. Haven't even looked to see if there's cross-wiki abuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:61.10.229.60

Hi, Bbb23,
There is an IP account that is going around posting "indefinitely banned" messages on user talk pages of editors you (and others) have recently blocked, like Lennieteague04 and Uncyclomusic. While it is not exactly improper behavior it is odd for a new IP account to focus on placing block notices. I thought it might be an admin or experienced editor who is editing logged out so I left a talk page message but I thought I should just alert an admin who might be affected. Maybe they are doing a valuable service, I don't know but I thought I'd pass it along. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who it is off the top of my head. I might be able to figure it out if I checked the IP, but I'm not going to bother. As far as I'm concerned, it is "improper" conduct. If it's an admin not logging in, that would be even worse, but that's very unlikely in my view. I've rolled back the changes and blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm glad I brought it to your attention. I've seen editors who like to post sock and block notices on user pages but they've always been regular accounts so it is possible to discuss it with them and whether they should be doing this (mostly the answer is "no"). But this was the first time I'd seen an IP doing this so thanks for taking care of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I saw another IP once not too long ago doing the same thing. I blocked them. They posted an unblock request promising never to do it again and apologizing. I unblocked them and they went right back to doing it. So, I reblocked them for longer. You win some, you lose some. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

Hi Bbb23, Thank you for applying discretionary sanctions to the above page. I look forward to adjudication regarding the deletions unilaterally made without prior discussion by User:Solntsa90. 09:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi BBb23, you blocked - here [72] - a couple of sock puppets who were constantly editing a number of TV series articles in a disruptive way. Starting the next day, there have been IP edits in the same vein with similar edit summaries - see for example [73] and [74]. I'm not sure how to report a suspected block evasion or what the next step would be, so if you could either let me know or have a look into it yourself that would be great, thanks. Melcous (talk)

Usually, the correct thing to do is to reopen the SPI and present evidence, which wouldn't be hard because it's fairly obvious. But I saved you some time and blocked both IPs. The problem is there may be more. One approach is to semi-protect the articles they attack, but that depends on how many articles are involved. Otherwise, unfortunately, other than reverting them, they would have to be blocked one by one. I checked the possiblity of a range block, but there are too many editors who use the same range.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your help. Hopefully that stops it for a while, but I will try to keep an eye open. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

He's back again, this time as User:QWERTY99. I'm happy to reopen the SPI, but there's no question it's him. --Drmargi (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he may be back again [75], but he's subtler this time, so I thought it best to drop a note here before reopening SPI. What do you think? --Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi:  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So much for that. What a stinker. Thank you. --Drmargi (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And he's back again, daring us this time: User:2607:fb90:1362:ba31:0:1f:465:b801. Would it be worth semi'ing the articles as he pops up? --Drmargi (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I semi-protected Burn Notice for a month. I didn't bother blocking the IP because he made only one edit; if he persists on other articles, let me know. Protection is warranted if there's enough disruption, so I'm happy to protect articles that are recurring targets. Just give me a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait a pain, but page protection for a fair period should give him time to get bored, and spare us sock chasing. He just got to White Collar (TV series) and Covert Affairs via other IP's, so it probably wouldn't hurt to protect them as well. I'll keep an eye on Suits, since it's running right now. I think the only other ones he's messed with were Graceland, Monk and Psych. --Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

He's still at it. A couple new IPs and a new sock on White Collar; I'll take them to SPI in the morning, when I'm back on my desktop. Meanwhile, see just above about protecting a couple more articles. --Drmargi (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation/Richelle Cohen

Hey Bbb23. I just wanted to get your attention for this sockpuppet investigation against Richelle Cohen[76] sockpuppet case. I know that the editor case is a bit stale, because you protected the page the user in question was vandalizing. I'm worried that the user will continue their tendentious editing on Katherine Harris when the protect expires. It's also pretty obvious user is a sock/meatpuppet of User:2600:1010:B02E:1269:AA64:8C2E:A7E0:E66C, who was blocked for editing in the same way, with the same edit summaries for every edit. Boomer Vial^Holla 13:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification

As I'm not very familiar with SPI, can I ask if your declined CPU means nothing wilk be done about Xtremedood's systematic harassment? He'll be able to continue ediring using his main account while harassing users who disagree with his edit through the dynamic IPs? Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's only your theory. The SPI will be decided based on behavior. I think your evidence of a connection between Xtremedood and those IPs is thin.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? The IPs edit the same area, with the same opinions, goes after those he disagrees with, sometimes go straight to AN3 to support him as their first edits, and he has a history of socking. If you think that's thin, well... Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, is there any way you could connect the enormous variety of IPs used for identical edits to each other? I haven't seen many SPIs that have only focused on IP socking but this editor is a consistent source of disruption to editors working on these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Punjab, Pakistan

Hello. Gerua18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was warned for edits on Punjab, Pakistan a few days ago seems to be related to 5.107.112.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who you blocked for block evasion (Xtremedood?). Check their contributions, with the IP continuing with the same edits as Gerua18 was making, right after Gerua18 was given a final warning, and also reverting an edit on Gerua18's talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I can be wrong but I doubt Gerua18 is guilty of anything else than being a new user who doesn't know how it works. Whoever the sock master behind the IPs are (and I have no doubt after studying both the all the 50+ IPs and the suspected master's edits [77]), the sock master and the IP harassment of various users had started long before Gerua18 joined Wikipedia. My guess is that Gerua18 is innocent and that the IP vandal just came there because I edited the topic of Punjab. It's far from the first time that this troll follows me and others around. Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Gormiti logo.jpg

This CSD was originally declined by me. The user who first tagged the image then went and unlinked it[78] (after it had been around for 15 months) and retagged it. I don't think this deletion was a smart one, nor in keeping with the spirit of G5. Would you reconsider? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored the image and added it back to the article. I saw what had happened before I deleted it, but I hadn't realized the image had been uploaded so long ago. I should have looked more carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No technical evidence?

Pardon me, but could you elaborate on this? The reason there is no technical evidence is that you decided to decline looking for technical evidence, isn't it? What other technical evidence could there be? Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I declined the CU request because, as I stated, we don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. However, the privacy policy doesn't preclude me from saying that IPs are not connected to a named account. I was able to do that to make the finding at the SPI. It might make you feel slightly better to know that I took the trouble to discuss the issue with another CheckUser, who, like me, is familiar with Xtremedood before taking action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not familiar with the processes so just asking. If you're convinced it's not Xtremedood then of course you did the right thing. I have no problems with Xtremedood myself, a few minor disagreements but very little, and the reason I filed it was the patter of editing that I mentioned. Of course nobody should be blocked if not guilty, so I'm not in the least bit disappointed. Quite the contrary, I would hate for any innocent user being blocked, especially if it would have been because my suspicion was wrong. Thanks for explaining. Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I know how much work you put into the analysis, and I appreciate your understanding and your views on "guilt". Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange SPI

FYI the utterly bizarre Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and the contributions of the now blocked editor who filed it [79]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Silly, isn't it? Both accounts are blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. :) Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Helpful IPsock?

When you have a chance, could you take a look at 5.228.177.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their activity? The IP actually assisted me in correcting a badly created SPI, but in looking at its other edits it looks highly suspicious to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 16:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(Beginning with its first edit, in which it marks itself as a suspected sock.) General Ization ^Talk 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A notorious sockmaster who outs himself and then bitches about being blocked afterwards. Nothing redeeming at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Changed his IP (well, not shocking in itself) [80], I guess. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC). Ah, been taken care of already (of that particular IP that is). Horseless Headman (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) It's Никита-Родин-2002, one of the currently most prolific sockers here (check the geolocation of the IP, that's where he lives; he prefers open proxies, though). He does things like that all the time, on dozens of WPs in different languages, and is also very active on multiple language versions of beta-WP, not leaving much time for other activities. Thomas.W ^talk 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillShowU

Hello. I noticed that WillShowU had been mentioned in another SPI, but see no similarities to that master, I do however see similarities between WillShowU and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew, since both have edited Kolkata Knight Riders, both have many edits on articles about Bollywood movies, both seem to have had an above average interest in box-office returns of such movies and neither of them used talkpages (Anice Mathews made 1,340 edits, but only two on article talk pages, while WillSHowU made 187 edits, none of them on article talk). It would also explain why WillShowU knew his way around here from day one. Anything and everything about AniceMathews must be stale by now, so I don't expect any technical comparison, I just thought I'd mention it. /Tom Thomas.W ^talk 23:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

More RedDeadJohn socks

RedDeadJohn is still socking, now as User:BD567. I left a couple messages about this, but they're well up page now, so it might be best to start a new discussion. The article for White Collar needs page protection, too. --Drmargi (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Filed at SPI to document this one. Another admin blocked yesterday's' sock before I got to SPI. --Drmargi (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaand he's back as Movieman191. Filed at SPI. This guy clearly needs to learn the definition of insanity. Would you protect Covert Affairs? --Drmargi (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for restoring a deleted page for improving its content

Hello!

I am the creator of the page The Pilgreens, an article about a French Association that was going on the news around the world. The article was deleted, in my option this was due to a mistake and I should have improved the draft first before publishing it.

Could you provide me the content of the article so that I can then write a better founded version with improved reasons for the article to be important?

And could you also provide detailed reasons for the deletion, so that we can work on that and show the importance of the page?

Thank you!

Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigmerz (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You seem to be on a campaign to create articles about yourself and your company. That's not what Wikipedia is all about. BTW, Sandgem Addict cannot restore the article or provide you with a copy of it. They just tagged the article for speedy deletion. They are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Close of Rich Piana AfD

Hi Bbb23, hope you're well - Rich Piana's AfD has been running for 22 days now, would it be possible to have it closed? Much obliged -- samtar ^whisper 13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I'm not the best administrator to ask. I can't remember the last time I closed an AfD (other than indirectly through a speedy deletion). Maybe one of my talk page stalkers will look at it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Admittedly you were the first admin in my watchlist :) I'm sure a stalker will grab this soonish, there's no real rush. Thanks anyway! -- samtar ^whisper 13:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Danny Wimmer Deletion

Hi there Bbb23,

you deleted the page I created after it was flagged for speedy deletion. After review, on the talk page, it was tagged as being 'within the guidelines' and should not have been deleted. Can you please clarify as to why you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuderman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it because it met WP:CSD#A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still somewhat confused. If it meets WP:CSD#A7 then why, on the talk page, was it listed as being within the guidelines? Would you send me the content that you deleted, so that I may improve upon it? I understand we want Wikipedia to represent notable ideas in an encyclopedic and objective manner. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid intern of Danny Wimmer Presents, represented by Danny Wimmer. I am tasked with creating a page for both, while given the understanding that I am not trying to promote a single product, feature, festival or subsidiary. My goal here is to be strictly informative. With help, I am confident that I will create a solid informational page regarding Danny Wimmer and the Company, Danny Wimmer Presents. All of your help is greatly appreciated. (Spuderman (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

Nowhere on the now deleted Talk page does it say the article was within guidelines. I have no idea to what you're referring. In fact, you got the opinion of an experienced editor - not an administrator - that it was likely to be deleted again, which is the precise opposite of what you're saying. Your disclosure about being a paid intern is a little late in coming, but I acknowledge that the paid editing policy at Wikipedia is not easy to understand. I will not send you a copy of the article, but I am willing to WP:USERFY it for you if you wish. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 I will accept that. I'm still getting the hang of these things, so I appreciate your patience. (Spuderman (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

It's now in your user space at User:Spuderman/Danny Wimmer. Please note that it should be submitted when you're done with it. If you move it directly to article space, it may be deleted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

These are really great. I regret not being born in The Netherlands. Nph (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)