User talk:Bbb23/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

UTRS appeal #17311

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17311 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Wackslas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Jan 11, 2017 20:20:38

Message: null

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, though you were not the last blocking Admin I am seeking your input since this was a CU block. 6 months have passed since the last block action. Are you happy with them accepting the SO and going to the Community or should it be deferred for a further 6 months? I am consulting also HighInBC. Just Chilling (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: It may take me a little time to respond because I have to stretch my poor brain back quite a ways. As you probably already know, HighInBC isn't on-wiki much anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

HighInBC has kindly drawn my attention to the previous appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: The user has a very checkered past, starting when he was indefinitely blocked in 2014 for vandalism. Then he was given a second chance a few months later. Then I CU-blocked him for sock puppetry in October 2015, followed by Talk page revocation because of his attitude. He lied to HighInBC in July 2016, which caused the second of two unblock discussions at AN. Now he claims he's reformed. It's a real struggle to believe anything he says based on this history, so I oppose an unblock. Maybe if significantly more time than the standard offer period elapses (six months from now?), I would feel a bit more sympathetic, but no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddtoro642

Greetings. The sockmaster has reacted rather badly to his indef-block on his talk page. Do you believe a revocation of user-talk privileges is warranted? Thanks for all you do. --Finngall ^talk 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: The last thing he did was blank the page, which he is entitled to do. Unless he's disruptive again, I don't think revoking Talk page access is needed. Thanks, though, for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oneshot

Can you please block Oneshot's latest IP, which he is using to troll me yet again, or at least protect Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to stop the IP's edit warring?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

False accusation. My interest is in the article, not with this disruptive combative editor. I have no beef with him. FYI this editor is about to be indeffed topic banned in this active AE :[1]. One of the charges being made against this longtime editor (who should know better by now than to engage in this behavior) is abusing process to advance edit warring, harassing other users with wikihounding and stalking behavior, and being generally combative (like he is doing now). If you doubt the seriousness of any this, simply review one of many neutral admin's current opinion of this editor's behavior: [2]. My advice would be to NOT allow yourself to be dragged into his drama, since he being accused of using various sneaky tactics (like this complaint) to distract from his political soapboxing and wiki:battlegrounding against other users. Just a friendly heads up. For my part, sorry if any of this represents a waste of your time.TTFN.73.95.139.127 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi! Hope your holidays went well.

Here's a sort of knotty question for you: an editor, X, is a non-notable artist (there are no Ghits except a small number to sites connected directly to him). Over the years, X's name has been inserted into numerous art-related Wikipedia articles, sometimes directly in the article, sometimes in a footnote. All the insertions are completely unsourced (what sometimes seems like a source is actually merely a link to an image of a specific artwork). For the most part, the insertions have been done via IP edits. According to his user page bio, X grew up elsewhere in the US, but now lives in New York City, and all the latest insertions (and reversions of deletions of the unsourced material) has been done by IPs of the 172xx range, which are NYC-based.

Editor X's user page is nothing but a long bio and promo for his work, so I sent it to MfD, but there's been very little response there.

If I filed an SPI on Editor X, I would be listing only IPs, because I have no evidence that he has used another account name, but certainly the use of IPs to insert one's own name into articles in a promotional way is a violation of the "avoiding scrutiny" part of the sockpuppetry policy. However, as there are only IPs to connect with X, no CU will make that connection publicly because of en:WP policy.

This would be a dead issue, since I've removed all unsourced mention of the non-notable article from wherever I've found it, and the user page - eh, it could stay or go, it wouldn't matter all that much. But as recently as 5 days ago, an 172xx IP added X's name to a list of non-graduate alumni from a certain prestigious university, on the basis that he attended summer school there. This tells me that X is not planning on stopping using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, despite having WP:PROMO and WP:Sockpuppetry point out to him.

(Incidentally, although I got involved only recently, the problem was raised as an issue 13 years ago as well, and nothing was done at that time.)

So, what would you recommend I do? Simply keep looking for unsourced insertions of this non-notable artist's name and deleting them, filing an SPI, get someone to write an edit filter for his name, or what? I really am not sure what to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I suppose I would file the SPI and hope that someone will take an interest and find the behavior clear and disruptive enough to merit blocks, including a block of the named account. Otherwise, you're put in the uncomfortable position of monitoring and correcting the problem for an indeterminate amount of time - not that you're obliged to do so, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll think that over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/LikeGaga

The style of interaction to make me think the person is indeffed Brexx. If not, the person is a persistent genre warrior and a long-term abuser. 115.164.53.243 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene

Bbb23 Has a check actually been done to check if the user Duqsene is a sock, like an IP check? Or are you just going by 'lack of evidence'?Resourcer1 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puhleec/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 It states, 'lack of evidence' and that's why the case was closed?... Resourcer1 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My finding was  Unrelated. The clerk made an independent finding that there was a lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sock?

User:Gna,xd - Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Cyrusqui (talk · contribs · count) and PaddyCarstairs (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User Editu

Hei this User Editu has upload any of my family pictures if you can help me please! ! Kdh (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about Commons, I have no special privileges there. You should contact a Commons administrator, either here or at Commons itself and explain the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure whose sock this is

Hi Bbb23, you CU blocked Jakobludwigfelixmendelsshon a few days ago, but I'm not sure who the master account was so I don't know which SPI to report this to - hence my badgering you here. Michealcorleone has restored some of Jakobludwigfelixmendelsshon's edits on Death Wish II and their edits look rather sockish. Could you take a look? Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Often CheckUsers block accounts outside of SPIs. Also they don't necessarily tag the accounts. In this instance, there is no SPI (at least not that I know of), and I didn't bother determining who the oldest account was, even had I wanted to tag the accounts I blocked. For your purposes, if you want to report a user as a sock of another user, just create the SPI and make your case in the normal way. If the case needs to be moved because there is an older account, that's not your problem. Michealcorleone is  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Rael Levitt

Has come up at BLPN along with you. I have pointed out that you didnt write the article and just reverted the blanking/removal of content so I dont think it needs a response from you but thought you should know. User likely has some relation to subject (and from the edit history I suspect some meat/sock puppetry) but they might have a legitimate complaint. It looks like quite a bit of the overly detailed negative info was added by the author of the material cited. Which is a no-no anyway, but a bit more problematic when its a live person and their legal problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm happy to let others deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Najaf

Hello. Najaf ali bhayo has been busy today, going after me, and his own SPI, with a number of socks ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and counting...), so the range-block that IIRC was in place to stop him might have expired. One of the socks listed has been blocked as a sock of Nsmutte, but fits the pattern of the others, making me believe that one is Najaf too... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008

Hi Bbb23, I just wanted to say I'm very sorry for creating another improper SPI talk page. I don't know why I didn't just file a regular case. It might have been because I was extremely tired then, having stayed up all night combing through articles. It's really unbelievable the amount of socks this person has, and it really did take me hours and hours. Would it be possible for you to maybe send me the deleted contents so that I can file a proper SPI, or could you restore the talk page and move it to the main SPI, or something like that? I hadn't saved what was on that talk page because I didn't expect it to get deleted. I truly believe the accounts listed there were indeed socks. Just thinking all that hard work and loss of sleep went for nothing is starting to make me panic. Sro23 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Please don't panic. Think of my guilt. :-) I can't just move it to the case page because it's not structured properly. So, here's what I'll do. I'll restore the page temporarily so you won't lose all your work. Then you can reopen the SPI itself. Once you're done, let me know, and I'll redelete the Talk page. And, you know, sleeping is more important than Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, you can go ahead and delete it right now. I actually have to go, but I have it all saved. Expect me to file a sockpuppet investigation soon. Sro23 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock blocks

I've just posted at WP:ANI#Inappropriate SPI blocks regarding an SPI closure and blocks you made. Sorry for not bringing it up with you first; I originally framed this as an unblock request and it skipped my mind to check with the blocking admin. Anyway, there's also a wider issue I'm hoping could be addressed, which I've stated there. Thanks for understanding. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The thread's been closed, so I'd like to continue enquiry with you here. The original post's copied below:

Hi. You blocked User:Smile228 and User:Wassanee for sockpuppetry raised in an SPI, but no wrongdoing seems to have taken place. Smile228's edits take place after Wassanee's ceased, and it's possible that they may have simply lost access to the older account. Even if this weren't the case, I think good faith should have been assumed and the offenders warned instead of outright blocked, as these are clearly not vandalism or block-evading accounts. Please reconsider the blocks. I'm posting this independently of the blocked users.

(I previously raised this as an unblock request, which was denied due to not being made by the blocked user, and subsequently posted at ANI, which was closed for being the wrong venue. Apologies for not bringing it here first; it skipped my mind after the first denial.) --Paul_012 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Will you have time to look into this? Or is there somewhere else I should be asking? Again, I'm sorry if my original post came across as accusatory. I was looking at the specific case and thought things didn't seem right; not doubting the integrity of anyone involved. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. There's nowhere to "look into this".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, then. I understand that CheckUser data is strictly confidential, so I'll trust that concrete evidence of abuse was demonstrated that was not evident from the two users' contribution logs. As an aside, though, it'd be nice to have some clarification on whether or not creating a new account after losing access to an old one would be considered multiple account abuse. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/TTN

I disagree that this should have been deleted. An exoneration with WP:BOOMERANG on the IP address filer is an appropriate thing to keep in the record, as are the various defenses of TTN by people who disagree with him on content/notability issues, is relevant. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI page

Regarding your comment here, the reason I filed it with an IP "master" is because that was used before the account got created. Out of curiosity, what particular issues (if any) are there with that? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

An IP is not created. It edits. The IP is operated by the named account. The IP doesn't operate anything. Whenever you open an SPI with a named account, the IP should never be named as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

From "How to open an investigation" at WP:SPI: "To open an investigation (or case), enter the user name (or if there isn't one, IP address) of the oldest-created account (the "sockmaster") ..." (bolding added).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Will keep that in mind for later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary schools RfC

Bbb you might want to move your !vote in this RfC to above the subheading "Process to consider", where all the Supports and Opposes are gathered. Disclosure: I made this very same mistake at first: Noyster (talk), 01:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Thanks very much for the heads up. I've moved it hopefully to the correct spot - that thing goes on and on and on ... --Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Likelihood of getting a CU to look at this?

Messaging you because it seems less disruptive than opening an SPI where DUCK would be enough to merit a block but what I really want is a CU, but I don't know if CU is even possible when the accounts I've identified are all stale.

I don't have specific evidence of recent sockpuppetry by Enkyo2 (talk · contribs), but it recently came to my attention that he was evading his one-year site-ban back when that was in effect. Horeki (talk · contribs) was definitely the same person, if you look at the (self-confessed) alt-account Ansei (talk · contribs)'s edits to simple.wiki (this for example). There's also the fact that he seemed convinced right up until his block that nothing bad was going to happen, and then a couple of days before he was finally blocked he suddenly went silent and never tried to appeal, even though several users in the ANI discussion had said they wouldn't oppose an unblock a few months down the line

I ask because I think a WP:SO might be in order. His article edits were mostly acceptable, and there's no real reason to assume his talk page etiquette hasn't improved. The one thing that makes me think twice is that, if he was willing to violate an ArbCom-imposed site-ban, he might very well have been evading the indefinite block that a few users (myself included) decided to put him under. But then, if he has been block-evading and no one noticed, there might still be reason to give him a standard offer as he couldn't have been causing that much disruption if he was never caught.

Asking for the main account to be unblocked when my gut is telling me he might have been dead and well and living on English Wikipedia the whole time just feels a little ... off. But all this assumes we can have some way of finding out whether he is still socking. I'm not even sure if it's technically possible for CU to find this information given how long the three obvious accounts have been inactive.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing can be done, and I have no clue why you're even interested in this.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you don't want to know, so I won't answer, but you probably don't need to say it like that. Needless to say it's complicated, and not something I want the 724 people with this page on their watchlist to start making assumptions about. I asked a question and you answered. The only reason I provided as much detail as I did was because I'm used to being met with "Why?" If nothing can be done, then unfortunate as it is we're done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

New sock Special:Contributions/Dinawest and Special:Contributions/Grayout are possibly MariaJaydHicky. 123.136.107.237 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gath (magazine)

Hi Bbb23/Archive 39, I noticed that the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gath (magazine) was blocked by you five minutes before they nominated the article for deletion. Does this mean that there is a gap in the timing that allows a blocked sockpuppet to continue causing havoc when they are officially wp:blocked? Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: Look again. They nominated the article about 55 minutes before I blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On blocking me for Schneerson comments

I know this is an issue from a few weeks ago, but I did not want to let your actions go uncommented. Been fairly busy. My concern with the Schneerson article is that it is "uneditable". A cadre of biased editors blocks all ability to edit the article. I figure you did not take the time to review the issue. As such, it speaks less of you. I don't care a whit about your block. I think what you should care about is what do such situations say about Wikipedia. I have tried repeatedly to bring this up with editors, discussion groups, administrative appeals, etc. The article is about an individual who by some is considered a Messiah, but a such it creates a sector in Wikipedia, where editors and administrators dare not delve. One of the persons mediating gave up. Another editor told me to give up, that the editors guarding the page are too zealous for objectivity to break through. You end up on their side, by doing so, you violate the "pillars of Wikipedia". I know you are going to tell me that there are procedures, mechanisms, that we can work out solutions. My answer to you, plain and simple, is that you acted like a fool when it comes to this Schneerson article. This is a corner of Wikipedia in which those rules have not applied. There is no possibility of mediation. My "edit warring" was to restore comments that were in the article for five years and that form nearly 10% of the man's obituary in the New York Times. Now there is nothing. My recommendation is that you seek to have me banned from Wikipedia. This is not an issue I am going to drop since it goes to the core of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I am not going to return to the article or here to discuss this point. This is a problem with Wikipedia: what do you do with the "uneditable" articles, in which a core group of biased authors block any entry and will not, and have never accommodated to neutral, well-sourced, relevant material entered into the article. By that I mean 10% of the entry in the obituary in the New York Times of this figure involved in one of the largest riots in the largest city of United States in the last decades.

Next time give it some thought before you act.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You actually are.

Dear Bbb23,  

  

     You are my role model for Wikipedia.  Ever since I made my account 6 months ago, I quit editing.  I did come back occasionally but never edited, however I have seen an evil increase in these sockpuppets and vandals.  I went to the Wikipedia rule book, and spent a few months reading thru it, learning about how there are checkusers, admins, sys-ops, and the arbitration committee.  It is these groups of people, that ban those pesky people(sockpuppets and vandals).  I really want to become like you, destroying those vandals and sockpuppets, and sending those evil users to hell, where they deserve to eaten by the devil(aka the bad users get banned permanently).  I am sorry if you did not find that, sockpuppets and vandal accounts getting eaten by devil hilarious, I am bad in making people laugh.  

  

Scincerely,   

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)   

Sockpuppet

User:Untukku appears to be a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkoAyMayLobo. The user is rather new but performing acts like an experienced user, and makes similar edits like the blocked accounts to Korean entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E610:1D5:1C25:DEAD:C200:4FE1 (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

CC5K

Just a technical question regarding your findings. Given CC5K's well known use of proxies is it feasible that it is actually CC5K and you don't have sufficient evidence to make an assumption or is there some separation that you've taken into account? I'm just curious because while I have no reason to question your findings, having had frequent experience of CC5K's edits I find it rather surprising. Of course if you can't talk about it I understand and feel free to revert my question if you wish - I'll take it as you being unable to respond.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

All I feel comfortable saying is I'm aware of the proxy issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

In case the editor seems familiar to you. --JustBerry (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tor Exit Node?

Perhaps, as a CheckUser, you may have some thoughts on this. Seems unlikely, even though user comments section here seems to suggest that. Doesn't seem to currently be a Tor exit node per this. Also, despite that comment being outdated, this seems to suggest that IP was not a Tor exit node on 12.01.15 either... --JustBerry (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI: User:Danrolo

Dear Bbb23, there's an incident at ANI about a user that you were involved with before. Best,Yazan (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You should revoke email access as well

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) just emailed me. It was in response to my comments on the talk page of an article he'd never edited. This makes me kinda think one of the IPs or newly-created SPAs who don't have email enabled may also be him, but I'm not interested in looking into this any further myself. The text of the email was About 600,000 people attended Trump's inauguration. That's more than any Presidential inauguration besides Clinton in 1993 and Obama in 2009 and 2013. Trump's turnout was a return to historical norms after the Obama aberration. Your recent claims on the talk page are factually inaccurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Are we sure this was from TheTimes? He has been impersonated ("joe jobbed") lately by Oneshotofwhiskey. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I can tell you that TTAAC sent e-mail. I'm assuming the e-mail Hijiri88 received said it came from TTAAC. As far as I know, there is no way for another user to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The email said it (This email was sent by user "TheTimesAreAChanging" on the English Wikipedia to user "Hijiri88".), as did the notification I received on-wiki (TheTimesAreAChanging‬ sent you an email.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, I just wondered if this might be part of the impersonation. Sounds like it couldn't be. --MelanieN (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser at StylesClash18 SPI

Hey Bbb23,

This case has been open for a few days and several new accounts are believed to have been found based on behavioral evidence (detailed at the SPI). I was curious if you could take a look? It as it seems like some vandalism may be flying under the radar from these socks and may have been present for a quite a while.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 8 years ago...

Happy First Edit Day, Bbb23, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• <pops champagne, throws confetti> Happy Wikiversary!!!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Gee, I didn't realize how long before I edited I created my account. I have no memory of why. Hey, Ponyo, it's so nice to hear from you I won't even say anything sarcastic. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• No sarcasm? That's like showing up to a movie theatre only to find out the popcorn machine is broken.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Happy Wikiversary, Bbb?! You have another milestone coming up soon: on 13 April, you will have been a Wikipedia editor for 3000 days. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• A very happy anniversary to you Bbb23. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pwscottiv

Hello Bbb23, I apologize for my inexperience with Wikipedia's standard procedures and rules for copyrighted materials. In my career of medical product development I'm heavily involved with intellectual property and I have secured trademarks and patents on many occasions. That said, I do not have an extensive amount of working experience with copyright law. Could you please specify which items on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brandon_Webb_(author) you feel are deemed copyright infringement and why? I really appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwscottiv (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, you had added material that was copied word-for-word from a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well is there an acceptable method for me to reference something word-for-word while staying within Wikipedia's guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwscottiv (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:C-P. (Please learn how to WP:SIGN your comments and how to WP:INDENT them properly.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. WP:C-P states that: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. This means that the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes), must be minimal, must have contextual significance and must have previously been published." Again, I want to be fully compliant with Wikipedia's rules and I'd rather not waste anymore of your time. Can you please identify the specific instance(s) of copyright infringement so I can make the required changes to bring the page into compliance. Thank youPwscottiv (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You copied text from this source. You added your own material to the article citing this source/video. You can't cite all those "marketing videos" and then add your own gloss as to what they mean. You cite to a whole bunch of YouTube videos, which are generally not considered reliable sources, especially for what you're doing. You can't cite the BBB at all for "complaints" received. It's a primary source and not permissible, particularly in a WP:BLP. In addition to the copyright violation, everything else you added was improper.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You previously stated that it's not acceptable to post "material that was copied word-for-word from a source". And now you're stating that "You added your own material to the article", which I interpret to mean that I can't add material that I've developed myself. You can't have it both ways, and if you did, Wikipedia would be absolutely devoid of content. I feel like you're just trying to road-block me here. Is that what's happening? Do you feel that it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to road-block people from contributing? Or do you feel that it would be more effective to assist me to improve the article while staying withing Wikipedia's guidelines? The fact is, after looking into Brandon Webb and even speaking over the phone with one of the seals he served with, much of his "shiny" outward appearance has been fabricated to promote his bushiness objectives as opposed to being genuine and telling the truth. I assume at least part of Wikipedia's goal is to paint the whole, truthful picture, as opposed to half-truths being used to promote someone's business objectives, no? Believe me, I have the highest respect for our armed forces, and especially so for special forces, Navy Seals included. So just in case it's your concern, my goal here is not to tarnish their reputation. My goal is only to tell the whole factual story. Is that your goal as well? Pwscottiv (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you purposefully ignoring my last message? Or did you just inadvertently miss it? Pwscottiv (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I missed your last message. Wikipedia is not interested in editors with an agenda. Wikipedia is not interested in editors who want to present THE TRUTH based on their own research. Wikipedia is interested only in articles with relevant information backed up by reliable secondary sources that are unrelated to the editor. In my last message I pointed out to you that in addition to the copyright violation, you also edited the article in other ways that did not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If your only objective at Wikipedia is to edit this particular article in the ways you've described and for the reasons you outline, I suggest you go somewhere else with your agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong SP cat?

Hi Bbb23, on 10 January you tagged The Wonkers as being a sock of Winterysteppe, but based on his MO and the ANI discussion, shouldn't that be Nipponese Dog Calvero? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The technical evidence matches Winterysteppe, not Nipponese Dog Calvero.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore

Good morning, Bbb23. I see your revert regarding the signature I added, along with your summary, and although I do respect the work/clean-up of administrators, I'm just curious about one thing that I seek clarification on. You wrote ...hard to believe it's your own work. I'm not taking it to the height that you'd be implying I'm untruthful, but the signature itself is hers, but it was my work in the respect that I isolated her signature away from her personal inscription to me of which it was on a color 8"x10" photograph she gave me back in 2002 when I worked with her on a project. Granted if I had posted the picture as a whole, anywhere on Wikipedia, obviously that would not be my work whatsoever. I'm just curious about this as although the signature remains as it is, I created the actual image contained therein. As far as noteworthiness, I've actually never had an issue prior— despite the fact that her Infobox type (and a few others) have signatures as a label item. Thanks. —Blue Jacaranda (TALK)— 18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Although I haven't checked Wikipedia's byzantine copyright policies and guideliness, I don't think signatures are copyrightable, so that's not an issue with what you did. As for other articles with signatures, it depends on the subject. For example, the signature of a signer of the Declaration of Independence or the American constitution would be directly relevant to their notability. Moore's signature doesn't have that kind of relevance? Unfortunately, because the infobox template has a field for the signature, editors often think that means use it. You're not alone in that. Hope that helps, and my apologies for the implication in my edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your feedback which I found really helpful. I do agree with the issue of infobox labels, as you see it all the time with other variables. —Blue Jacaranda (TALK)— 02:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) It would be more accurate to state that the signature is the work of Moore and that you simply isolated it from the original work via cropping, cleaning, etc. The template {{PD-signature}} is also available, though I'd suggest reading Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag for pitfalls regarding the copyright status of signatures. clpo13_(talk) 18:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What did I do Wrong?

I updated a friend's bio to include his current ongoing Philanthropy work and provided a reference link to his profile on the 501.3c non-profit website. Another user Reverted/Deleted all my contributions twice , flagged factual info and reference links as spam, added templates/warnings to the page saying it's not compliant, AND finally submitted the entire page to be deleted. Every revisions I've made to comply just makes this other user angrier and angrier. I need advice on corrections for page compliancy. PDeditorial (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tong_Trithara

FYI

Just so you know, according to this, I am your sockpuppet ... or you are my sockpuppet ... or, wait, you and I and a bunch of other editors are sockpuppets of someone else, that's it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm listed first. I win.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Darn! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted as G3, though in hindsight it was a G5. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

About this. This is just a minor edit. I realize that if an edit does not cause anyone's objections (I mean specific objections explained on the article talk page), this edit can be made per "WP:consensus" by default. Is not it? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding range block

Are you able to answer my question over on User talk:Mike V regarding a range block resulting from a CU? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but per policy I cannot.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'm trying to figure out where to address vandalism coming from what I suspect is the same user EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Richwales on Ombudsman Commission now

Hi. Please be aware that I was just appointed to the global Ombudsman Commission. While I plan to continue functioning as an SPI clerk, I will need to keep my hands off any case involving CheckUser, in order to remain impartial in case I am called upon to investigate possible misuses of the CU or Oversight policies. So, any SPI where CU is requested, or where CU was performed, will be off limits to me. I'll certainly do what I can on cases where CU was not involved — including, possibly, cases where CU was requested but rejected. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Richwales: Good luck on the OC!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Small world...

...I see you ran into this editor too. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the problem here?? Linguist^talk|contribs 18:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is you don't know what the problem is. At some point you're going to be blocked for your disruptively poor judgment. You just don't learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, it says at WP:EVASION that Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. Suddenly, that's all wrong and I've become a huge detriment to the encyclopedia for some reason. Meanwhile, WP:RBK says that using rollback for reverting obvious vandalism or where the reason is clear, reverting edits by banned or blocked users, reverting edits in your own userspace and self-reverting. I have been adhering to this. Both of you haven't in these edits [13][14] but apparently what you're doing is okay. Sorry, but I just don't get it. Linguist^talk|contribs 19:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about your reverts at the IP's Talk page. Block evasion doesn't apply to a blocked user's Talk page, obviously. You should consider yourself fortunate that all I've done so far is to remove the rollback permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't clarify, but that IP admitted to being a sock here. By the way, my alt Linguist111 (away) has rollback as well so you might want to revoke that too. Linguist^talk|contribs 19:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if true, that changes nothing. It's still a Talk page of a blocked user. Your central problem is you usurp the role of administrator in many of your edits. You can't remove an unblock request from a Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if it's trolling? Linguist^talk|contribs 19:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not your decision to make. I've removed rollback from your alt account. Thank you for your honesty.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Suppose a sock of Supreme Genghis Khan creates a sockpuppet account, it gets blocked but talk access isn't revoked, and they make an unblock request with, as they have done in the past, "So and so is a sex offender."? Do I still just leave it? Linguist^talk|contribs 19:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not the same thing. That's a personal attack and can be removed by a non-administrator. I would also contact the blocking admin about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Just two more questions for you, I promise I'll get out of your hair after this. If I stop doing whatever I'm doing that's disruptive, continue reverting vandalism, and then in some months' time I request rollback again, is there a possiblity I will get it back? Lastly, could you please provide links to policies that support what you are saying, for future reference? Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You can get rollback in the future if you demonstrate that you can use it responsibly. There is no specific policy that I'm aware of prohibiting this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your answers. I'm going on WikiBreak now, so bye! Linguist^talk|contribs 19:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb. If Linguist is still around, all I can say is "huh?" Of course those talk page comments were relatively harmless, and of course those constant reverts were disruptive, as I indicated. In fact, I ran into an edit conflict denying the silly unblock request and revoking talk page access. As for getting rollback restored, sure--but if you don't understand why your reverts were disruptive, and if you continue to be unresponsive to questions and comments from others (like me), then no. BTW, I wasn't even interested in the use of rollback as a gadget; my point was about the lack of manners. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• BTW, "so and so is a sex offender" may well be a candidate for revdeletion, and "undo" doesn't take that much more time. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Not to be an additional burden to the discussion, but, since all of this has been happening across several pages on my watchlist I might take a moment to weigh in a little. I'll refer you to the unblock guideline which is very specific in saying that block requests will be dealt with by an admin; Editors may leave comments on your talk page regarding your appeal, however, any uninvolved (independent) administrator will make a decision. Emphasis is my own. The only action you could have taken is to leave a note for the admin, but, I suspect that would have been pointless as our admin corps have at least the spare mental capacity to recognize "obvious trolling". I have no opinion on the right removal decision, but, Bbb23 your removal of rollback rights is ... well I'd describe it as "lame duck"/ineffectual in that it didn't actually do anything to stop Linguist using rollback. That said, since I am aware that Linguist can continue to use rollback via a different mechanism, even though you can use rollback without rollback privileges, I caution heavily that you don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Josh Ostrovsky's Page

I saw you undid my edits to Josh Ostrovsky's page. If you could, could you please undo your actions and add to mine instead of deleting them entirely? They were well sourced and all true. Also, "awful" is not a good way to describe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklbell (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You're an unseasoned editor, and until you learn more about editing and the policies at Wikipedia, I suggest you make much smaller edits than the ones you made at Ostrovsky's page. "Awful" may be harsh, but it's accurate. That doesn't mean you can't learn, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, pretty sure this new user:Rogerstar87 is another sock of Aries009, after you indeffed User:Fatality1. Can you have a look into this?--Wolbo (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User now blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Wolbo (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I also see edits from brand new editor Tristarjones on Talk:Roger Federer... same topic as Fatality1 on Serena Williams. I'm very suspicious that it is either an Aries009 clone or perhaps Svrodgers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This user has appealed at [15]. There is nothing either in the block message or on his talk page to explain to him whom he (is)(suspected to be) a sock of. Do you have a link to the investigation archive, if there is one, please? Just Chilling (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

His userpage is tagged. There is an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aries009. However, he wasn't blocked because he was listed at the SPI. He was blocked because I ran a check based on Fyunck's comment. The account, as you should already know, is  Confirmed. He's not worth your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry! I thought I had checked his user page but obviously hadn't. I have given my own knuckles a hard rap! Just Chilling (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding SPI

Did you file the SPI at another place, why did you close it prematurely? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How did you file the SPI? Using the procedure at WP:SPI? Using Twinkle? Or by hand?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You told Twinkle that the master was "Unknown". Why? If you didn't know who the master was, you can't file a case. The page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unknown is an SPI redirect (a special kind of redirect) and you aren't permitted to edit it. In any event, the account you tried to report has been CU-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Brilbluterin flare-up?

Hi B, I happened upon Arjunchopra making odd POV edits, like here where he describes something as "immensely popular" and here where he describes someone as "well-liked" and here where the subject is known for her "elegant beauty" and "gifted acting skills". He has an interesection here with Thertho Bose, one of the Brilbluterin socks at a relatively low-traffic article, which is suspicious. There were also intersections with Thertho here, which Thertho was all over, and here. The user has also created three articles, which is a bit ballsy for a new user. I don't know that puffery was one of the hallmarks of the Brilbluterin socks, and I don't know if there's enough here to look into Arjunchopra specifically, but I'm curious if it might be worth checking for more Brilbluterin socks, since they were so ridiculously prolific. ?? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Whose sock was this?

Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη (talk · contribs)

You CU-blocked the account along with four others at roughly the same time, but didn't apparently link any SPI or anything. I ask because Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη edited the Hellenization page in a manner that really made them look like the same Chrisanthi Likousi (talk · contribs),[16][17][18][19] and another account has recently been doing the same thing; Chrisanthi Likousi was blocked by User:DeltaQuad along with about 20 others as a sock of Ψάλ, and I didn't notice this fact until after I opened a new SPI under Chrisanthi Likousi's name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and also, although my Greek isn't what it probably should be, "Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη" appears to romanize to Sofia Koutsouveli (talk · contribs) or perhaps Sofia Koutsouveli 2005 (talk · contribs), which were also blocked by DQ as part of the same massive sockfarm as Likousi. I literally just noticed that now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You're already raised this issue on DQ's Talk page. Too many CheckUsers in the kitchen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Too many checkusers spoil the socks, as they say... ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I only asked DQ about merging my jump-the-gun SPI case with the one they previously addressed, while I asked you about why you blocked an account that I suspect is related, but was never publicly connected to the ones DQ blocked. If you don't remember and can't check again, that's cool. I'm really more curious than anything. (Although now that editors with Greek names are posting comments on my talk page that get revdelled before I read them and getting CU-blocked, and hose other edits are DUCKs, while my initial SPI has been essentially ignored, I guess I have a motive to get this all sorted out as soon as possible.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing vital to add here, but I now have an earworm of a modified version of Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening; and felt I must share it. "Whose socks these are I think you know..." Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious user X Aterui x

Hi, this user (User:X Aterui x) appears to be making similar edits to blocked user User:Kumasojin 熊襲; the 'new' user began posting just after the old user was blocked. Is it possible to check if this 'new' user is a sock? This edit [20] repeats the same nonsense on genetics that the old user tried to add here ([21]) and here ([22]). Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Because of some technical anomalies, I'm unwilling to block. If, however, you take user to WP:SPI, I can provide a more nuanced finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious user Neiyay

I blocked Neiyay (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) yesterday as an undisclosed paid editor based off their exclusive interest in companies and BLPs and inclusion of unverifiable information e.g. DOBs. Given their relative professionalism and the time over which they've edited, I think it is unlikely that this is their only account. Are you able to run a CU on them? (As an aside, I have asked at WT:CHECK to clarify policy on CUing undisclosed paid editors like this, but nobody said much either way). Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Two CheckUsers and WMF legal counsel opined on policy in that discussion. I don't think you're going to get a one-size-fits-all answer. I also don't think you can classify a paid editor as an "undisclosed paid editor[s] like this" as not all paid editors are created equal or have the same editing patterns. Whether to run a check is a matter of discretion for the CheckUser and should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. In this particular instance, I saw no other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This suspicious attitude towards serious but paid editors was never to my liking. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously too sophisticated for CU...

Well yeah but nobody really commented on my actual suggestion. I don't think the current ad-hoc process is sustainable. There are so many accounts like this that pop up that we should have a process similar to SPI for clerks to weigh up the evidence as to whether they are likely to be an UPE rather than leaving it up to individual CUs. Obviously they don't all have the same editing patterns but there are certain traits that crop up again and again. Ybtyh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for example is another that came to my attention today - very unlikely to a sock of the account who created this article about the same company last month, but there's no way they aren't a sock of someone, especially since they knew to use a different page title to try and avoid detection.

And @Debresser: I've nothing inherently against paid editing but the content users like this add is consistently about non/just-notable subjects, with poor quality sourcing and unverifiable information. That's my problem. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a very sophisticated CU. I could not support the kind of process you mention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that but if my livelihood depended on it, I'm fairly sure I could find a way around CU. Would you mind elaborating on why you wouldn't support such a system? I'm not saying that I can't see there being any potential problems, but I think it would be better to have a centralised venue for requests. And RE Ybtyh - can you check them? It looks to me as if they company tried to create the article themselves, failed to make it stick so have now hired a professional. SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

SmartSE But that is not justification for a block. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was speaking generally rather than specifically - the reason for the block was that they are only here to promote subjects i.e. notpromo/nothere. SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: I'm unwilling to go into detail about the "system" on my Talk page. I'm also unwilling to check Ybth without your identifying a master. I was on the fence on the other one, and there's a limit to how far I'm willing to push the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR

I invite you to comment on as well as to endorse my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Mamoukas

You blocked this user indefinitely and gave {{checkuserblock-account}} as your reason. What does that mean? Debresser (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That means they are a  Confirmed sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't have to be "confirmed" - just a sock I found through doing a check. In this particular instance, the account was confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. That certainly explains a lot. Where could I see that investigation? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me which other username or IPs he had been using? Debresser (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I could never tell you which IPs he was using; it's against policy. As for the other accounts, there were many, and I don't intend to list them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

About the IPs I understand. A shame there is no sock investigation report with his other usernames. It would help me understand what other articles he might have influenced. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Before I ran the check, many, many accounts had already been blocked that were all related. None of the blocking administrators had taken the trouble to put it all together and determine who the master was. None of the accounts had been tagged. I blocked five more accounts, the one you know about included. I tend to agree with you that it would be helpful to create an SPI so other editors have a more complete picture of the abuse, which would of course enable them to better identify new socks if they pop up. Frankly, it would have been a lot of work, and I simply didn't feel like it. It's not as easy as you might think. Perhaps I'll feel guilty enough now (thanks for that :) ) so I'll do it, but no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether you get around to it or not, thanks for your diligent efforts to keep Wikipedia free from vandalism and other editor-related troubles. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The report now exists at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sofia Koutsouveli. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure if that's the only report related to the many socks or whether it's only part of it. There was more than one case out there, and I'm not sure if they've all been consolidated yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyeTripleE

I do not see evidence of using abusive alternative accounts. I thought they are allowed to have other accounts. They are helping me with my draft pages. They are valuable to the community. Thanks for your time. Much appreciated. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the talk page of one of the socks, Bbb23 is already discussing this with them. FYI you are allowed to have other accounts, however not for illegitimate purposes.--5 albert square (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Calihill

The user's editing style must be MariaJaydHicky sock. 123.136.112.147 (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:RickinBaltimore. 123.136.111.248 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Joan Ryan page 'Antisemitism Scandal' section

Your reason for repeatedly undoing the suggested edits on the page in question is 'Need better sourcing', but the cited source is - from my arguably fallible POV - a well-researched, respectable piece of journalism from a generally well-trusted news organization (at least according to many on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard).

Can you explain or justify further why this shouldn't be included on the subject in question's bio page?

Cheers. Hedgehog90 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

15:56, 3 February 2017 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Mike Gentile (entrepreneur) (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)

We paid someone from fiver to create and publish our Wikipedia page, but it was blocked due to a ban. How do we get it back up? We can make some additional content edits if that helps it not get banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.155.230 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please ask for your money back. The Fiverr user you paid has violated our site's policies on disclosure of paid editing and use of multiple accounts, and is banned from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Dallidoman22 possible return

Hi, There was a previous sockpuppet investigation into Dallidoman22 which resulted in that user and their other accounts being blocked. There is now a new user I suspect of being the same person, on the grounds that the account was created in January, and that the user is making very similar edits of the same pages, e.g. Sewardstone, Waltham Abbey (town). Could you investigate it based on the information I have given, or would I need to open an investigation? (I am not clear on how to go about re-opening an investigation.) Dubmill (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Dallidoman22/associated accounts never edited Sewardstone unless as an IP. But the substance and style of the editing by this new user is very similar. In addition to Sewardstone, this new user has certainly edited Waltham Abbey (town) and is making similar edits to pages for other settlements that are in Essex but on the fringes of London. The rewordings remove mention of Essex and begin with the statement that (x settlement) is in the London metropolitan area. Dubmill (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dubmill: 97RGr (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, in the future, please link to the account so I don't have to hunt it down. As for reopening a case, it's easy, go to WP:SPI, follow the instructions, and put in the name of the master. It will automatically append the new SPI to the old one(s).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll use the form next time. Dubmill (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi Bbb23 - apologies for not tagging there, I sometimes `drive by` from getting a ping on IRC and don't finish up the tagging as I'm pre-occupied. I'll make sure in the future I block and tag instead as I realise this just adds work to the SPI clerks and checkusers. Any pointers you have on tagging would however be appreciated! As for this SPI, I blocked on the rather clear behavioural evidence of re-creating Banmata - I compared BANNAJS's deleted contribs with Jai Rajput's to arrive at this conclusion -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh also, if I block and tag the only reported account should I also close the SPI? I didn't know if that is a clerk-only thing -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samtar, absolutely no need to apologize. You're not required to tag. However, if you want to tag, that'd be great. Assuming you're familiar with the template, you should use {{sock|master|blocked}} when the evidence is not as strong, which produces "this is a suspected sock ...", but you should use {{sock|master|proven}} when the evidence is stronger, which produces "this is a sock ...". Be wary, though, of those cases where we've stopped tagging per WP:DENY. After you're done, go ahead and close. Any administrator can close an SPI. Only a member of the SPI team can archive it. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Block review

Cross-posting from a couple of other pages. As a checkuser, I am doing the review on Sizeofint's unblock request. If there is any information that I need to evaluate the block, please let me know, including by e-mail if the information is non-public. I'm especially interested in the evidence that there was abuse of multiple accounts as well as what factors you took into account in deciding the block lengths for both accounts. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I already e-mailed you in response to your post on EyeTripleE's Talk page. Your comments here elaborate on what you want to know. I suppose I'll have to e-mail you again to include some more on what you're "especially interested in" because that wasn't in the first e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the e-mails. I have replied to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Promoting

Hello! This user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cari_kdrama is promoting his/her site and keeps adding non-notable fan awards in several pages. I think he/she also violates the username guidelines. Hope you can stop the user's disruptive editing. Thank you! 180.191.147.14 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

IP block issue

Sorry about this. What should I do instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall blocking an IP in response to that case. I just closed it. NinjaRobotPirate imposed a range block, but the new IP you referred to is in a different range.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like I did two /64 range blocks. It's possible this person is on a really wide range. @Scjessey: you could contact me on my talk page if you find more IPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: & @Bbb23: Thank you both. I will do as suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello! There has been repetitive removal of content in Seo In-guk's page. It has been happening for days now. I think the page needs protected or the IP users need to be blocked to stop this.Hope you can take a look. Thanks! 180.191.147.14 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NOINDEX

It is really weird. When I googled "Jytdog" (without quotes) I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog among the search results.

I then used the following searchquery on Google:

inurl:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/

It gave me a single result, but it said that it had hidden pages that were very similar to that one, and when I clicked the link to show them I saw many indexed SPI pages.

AFAIK they are all noindexed, and therefore shouldn't show up in Google's search results. Do you see them too? It seems like the NOINDEX isn't working.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm hardly an expert on this stuff, but I believe that all SPI pages are noindexed through the initial template in each case, {{SPIarchive notice}}. Thus, your adding it would be redundant. However, my experience has been that Google doesn't always honor noindex and there are other technical wrinkles that may prevent noindex frm being honored. I avoid these issues by going with the simplistic view that there is almost nothing private anymore in this world and you can find almost anything on the web.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, weird. I'll add it to my todo-list, maybe I can find someone who knows more about this stuff. Maybe the WMF did something wrong (probably ). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I always blame everything on the WMF - makes Wikipedia life so much easier. As long as you're adding it to your to-do list, I need some golden raisins, some pita bread, some ... --Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I think to myself WWJD and then I decide to blame the WMF for everything. I added it to the list. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, cool. So much better than virtual cookies.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @The Quixotic Potato:... why googling 'jytdog', out of curiosity? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: See User_talk:Jytdog#Your_harassment_of_Wikipedia_editors and User_talk:Vipul#Hi. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

F(Redacted) me!!! -Did they really just say 'I'll make sure everyonee knows about you'?!?! Unbelievable. Cheers, Potato! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol. No worries, Bishonen will get them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hello Bbb23,

I just came out clean on "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Towns Hill"... Could you have a look at the disruptive behaviour of User:MBlaze Lightning. I mentioned his behaviour in my comment (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Towns_Hill#Comments_by_other_users). This User is basically on a spree to constantly remove reliably sourced content, and does not bother giving an explanation, his behaviour is disruptive. Kindly look into the matter. Regards Oye You There (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.163.94.129

Are you sure this is who you think it is? If you are sure, would you mind emailing me with more info? Thanks :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I'm not sure I know who it is. Technically, the little I could see wasn't very satisfying. I mainly blocked them on the basis of the post at Katie's Talk page. If you believe the block to be incorrect, you may take whatever action you wish. If you can also explain more about what's going on (I saw your e-mail), please e-mail me when you have a chance.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied on the mailing list, but will email you in just a little bit! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet help

Bbb23 You removed my investigation post but I'm not entirely sure what exactly I'm meant to do... 're-open the right investigation' is vague to me... am I meant to put it under the first-first supposed account?Resourcer1 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you figured it out a couple of minutes after you posted the above. What you did now was correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not realise that's how it worked. Also I wasn't sure if I was meant to list every single account associated with the user in the past or only the one I want investigated now, but thank you.Resourcer1 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 I believe and am quite sure the person I opened an investigation for is actually a sock of a different account rather than the one I suggested, Can I edit the investigation page or do I need to start a new one?Resourcer1 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

CU request - Hey Arnold!: The Jungle Movie

Hi B, might I please trouble you to take a look at the edit history at Hey Arnold!: The Jungle Movie. The place is a hotbed of Rodolfootoya12 socks. I think I may not have properly filled out the last report, (I think I forgot the CU switch) but I was hoping to get some CU attention. There are a number of CartoonMan* users like Cartoonman299, CartoonMan50, CartoonMan419 and so forth. These are all in close proximity to ducky Otoya socks, along with Costa Rican IPs like here. Although I don't know how the CU thing would work here if the master is so ancient. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You could reopen the case with a list of suspected puppets and request a CU. A check could compare the individual puppets against each other and the account that was blocked behaviorally last month.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SPI filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodolfootoya12. GAB^gab 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17552

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17552 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Sixthy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Feb 21, 2017 02:16:51

Message: Hi, are you OK with them having a 6 month standard offer? At the end they will still have to satisfy the Community as well, natually.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: The other account, Sruchlewicz, is the older of the two accounts, but it's only a matter of minutes, so I suppose it's unimportant. I have no objection to the standard offer, but it shouldn't be the community that decides whether to unblock them at the end of six months. They should make an unblock request at that time, and we'll take it from there.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Hello! Please look at Sunkist Family page. The drama it's about has not even gone into production, it is all unreliably sourced (per WP:KO/RS) and the page was moved without reason: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sunkist_Family&diff=764439161&oldid=759555184 I believe it should be deleted or redirected to the manhwa's page until casting is confirmed and principal photography is underway. Thank you! 178.75.234.183 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Chahalkadam

Hello. I've found off-wiki evidence that this user is an undisclosed paid editor and given the list of other jobs that they have taken, it is very likely that there are other socks to find. Can you do the honours? I'll email you evidence. Chahalkadam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

As the protecting admin, do you consider the dispute at Robert Sungenis to have involved a genuine BLP issue, one that would have exempted editors from 3RR? Thanks. El_C 06:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked only at the fact that so many experienced editors were edit-warring and felt that full protection was superior to blocks. Generally, I reserve the BLP exemption only for egregious violations, e.g., so-and-so molested children without a reliable source. Sungenis is a controversial figure and to analyze whether the exemption applies to any particular editor or editors, the analysis would be extensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

3 revert

I noticed you are active on the 3RR board. I'm hoping you can help me. An editor used this source to support this edit. I left this message for this editor because I feel the source cited is illegally hosting copyrighted material. If I revert the edit again to tag it as a copyright violation (which it may not actually be) I will hit my third revert. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. Why don't you ask Diannaa? She's a copyright expert.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

She is. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The image at Imgur appears to be a scan of the liner notes and hence a copyvio in my opinion. If someone owns a copy of the CD, they could use the liner notes as a source. There's data there that's not available at iTunes — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much. I'll let the editor know. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You should probably get this once a week for your work at WP:SPI. NeilN talk to me 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. Ironically, this last week my CheckUser activity at SPI has been uncharacteristically low.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

UrielWelsh

You just revert my edit on Henry Cavill page with no pre-production info, please check on Alexandra Daddario Filmography table, it exist there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel welsh (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In any event, I removed the film from that table as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:97RGr

Apoligies first off, thought I had already done this. The CU report on the sockmaster doesn't seem to include this username within so I was seeking advice on if this had been tagged on behavioural evidence, technical or some other evidence I cant see (or have overlooked). The my sibling did it doesn't hold much (any) sway with me if I'm honest but was just looking for clarification on how the block was arrived at. Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: I was alerted that 97RGr was a possible puppet here. Regardless, the block log should tell you that this was a checkuser block, meaning it was based on technical evidence (as well as behavioral). In the future, you don't need to put an unblock request on hold just because you're looking "for clarification". Normally, a hold is when you want to recommend that the user be unblocked or you have questions that, depending on the answers, might cause you to recommend an unblock. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Sorry about the mix-up will go clear that request up now. Amortias (T)(C) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

ShinySquire & YorkvilleFan

What's the story with those two? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems obvious. They're socks. And there are more than two of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, how did you find them? I didn't see an SPI or anything on the noticeboards. Just curious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Babak Rahnama

You got there too fast  ;) I was just about to put G5 on it as well, as it's been recreated (now) four times; only one of the is in my log, and that was 20 Fby, created by the blocked User:Loveforeall, themself a sock of User:Wikieditorlove. Anyway, you get the picture. Take care, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Circular Reasoning"

Since you chose to use your apparent authority to close my topic on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with: “This discussion was a non-starter by the OP. Many editors have explained the basis of the policy and the obvious point that this page is not intended for a discussion of WP:CIRC,” then I trust that you personally will have little difficulty in answering the following:

BTW, here is an example of circular reasoning (Regarding evolution): The principle that drives evolution is survival of the fittest. Therefore, why is a presently surviving species the fittest? Because it survived. And why did it survive? Because it is the fittest. How is this topic analogous to this? Wiki article A is being used as a source for Wiki article B but not visa versa.

Thank you for your consideration.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @HistoryBuff14: So; you want to have the whole argument over gain, with only a geographical difference? I think there's a fair chance that this thread will be closed with- guess what?- 'This discussion was a non-starter by the OP. Many editors have explained the basis of the policy and the obvious point that this page is not intended for a discussion of WP:CIRC'... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm simply inquiring what the topic I started has to do with circular reasoning, a (well known) example of which I gave above. Since the reason given for ending the topic was circular reasoning, then I think it is reasonable to inquire why is it judged such. You disagree? I'm not asking to adjudicate the matter per se again, but rather simply asking for an explanation on this narrow point.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said the topic you started was based on "circular reasoning". I said the discussion was going in circles, i.e., you and the responders were repeating yourselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Bbb23 wants a full blown discussion on evolution here so I'll keep this short. Your example is neither a well known example of circular reasoning (except as artificially constructed by evolution-deniers) nor does it it any way pertain to WP:CIRC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I see the source of my confusion. I must confess that I am wrong here. When I was referred to WP:CIRC, by its initials I simply assumed it went to a page explaining and disallowing using sources that constitute circular reasoning rather than having actually gone to it. I was admittedly negligent in making such an assumption (though by the initials one can well see why I would) as I now see that it links to a far more general page regarding verifiability. So case closed (as I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear). Regarding circular reasoning and evolution, I never said that such a criticism alleging tautology is necessarily valid, simply well known,. Here is one of numerous links you can find on which the issue is addressed (with responses). This is not intended to begin a discussion on evolution. Thank you for your input. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.htmlHistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

sockpuppets

I ask for help in the tigrayans page is a user who creates from about 1year multiple users to ruin the work of others :the user is User:Otakrem User:Puhleec User:Resourcer1 User:Bangutoker User.86.89.46.70--Ferdi tal (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock

User:Rasral is a vandalism only account. It is either the sock of User:TRUEV140 or another a/c of 14.139.183.220. His edits and articles of interest[23] have uncanny resemblance with the above said. Thanks.--LineTrajectory (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

ginsburg

Rehnquist-related edit you reverted in Ruth B Ginsburg article; just fyi: it's the only question he asked her. he was the only dissenting opinion in that case. he did ask some other questions of the other atty on her side.transcript here if curiousG1729 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

topicon

FWIW, I actually mentioned to Oshwah (on IRC) that I added that, when I did so. He thought it was funny. Revent^talk 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Then he can add it back, although it kinda gets lost with all the other icons at the top of his page. Honestly, users should change their own userpages - it avoids any misunderstanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Roman sajid

Can you please tell me the qualification to become an admin on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman sajid (talk • contribs) 09:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:GRFA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Medal of Freedom (MF) Label Below the Names of Individuals

I did not make up the MF designation for the articles that I've edited. You may not have noticed but the MF label is placed below the names of people in certain articles here on Wikipedia such as that of Diana Ross and Robert De Niro. The same goes for British people such as Helen Mirren and Elton John who have been awarded the Order of the British Empire (the CBE label can be seen below their names). I'm deeply offended at your rudeness and assumption that I am being disruptive for the sake of it when in fact, I've been a Wikipedia editor for a while so I know better than to not research before making edits. Before you single me out and threaten to block me because you disapprove of my editing, do your research to understand why I'm making certain edits. Stop jumping to conclusions so quickly. If my editing goes against a supposed format, send me proof so we can discuss and possibly edit other articles that may have gone against the same particular format that ultimately led me to making certain edits you noticed are wrong. If you don't want us to find common ground, I suggest that you leave me alone. Instead of issuing a warning against me, we should negotatiate. Wikipedia is not about making enemies, it is about finding common ground among editors without disrespect. You highly disrespected me as an editor by assuming I was making stuff up.Bryantriplex (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that you should know about the Ross and De Niro articles. The MF designation there was added by another user. It has now been removed by another administrator. The CBE and similar honorific labels are not made-up and so are irrelevant. The warning on your Talk page stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17653

Hi, how would you feel about them being offered the 'second chance' procedure, please? Just Chilling (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why they needed to use UTRS. They had Talk page access and nothing they said at UTRS was private. I don't know what "second chance" is, but you could extend the standard offer if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as the standard offer is a tool used for socks to rehabilitate themselves, the second chance is for vandals. If they agree to it then Template:2nd chance is placed on their talk page. This enables them to demonstrate constructive editing and a positive reaction, especially from the blocking admin, would be needed for an unblock. Just Chilling (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Two things: as Bbb23 said, these appeals not involving private data or removed TPA can be redirected to on-wiki instead of processed via UTRS, although the latter is also fine. I've left you a few notes in the appeal Just Chilling because the account was blocked by Bbb23 but also the IP or range the user is editing from was blocked by K6ka (I don't know the IP/range because I'm not a CU and CU can't reveal that info). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

KaZantip

Hi! I'm ST15RMwikipedia. Thanks for reverting my edit on KaZantip. I was going to change the edit back to the original version later but never got a. I must have not looked at the article closely enough. I'm a relatively new user, so please give me some advice on edited. It would be much appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ST15RMwikipedia (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The main piece of advice I can give you is to edit only articles, not policies, guidelines, or even essays. As you say, you're too new to do that. Also, go slow. Small edits in the beginning are usually better than large ones. Finally, please WP:SIGN your posts on Talk pages. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I'll limit myself to articles for now. Thanks, ST15RM 00:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ST15RMwikipedia (talk • contribs)

You delete my page

You delete my page with out giving me a chance Rehman Badami (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Escoperloit

Srwa91r (talk · contribs) is sock of Escoperloit. I did not file a SPI because it is pretty obvious. 85.110.190.201 (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Escoperloit again!

Medpart90 (talk · contribs) is a new sock. A sock of Escoperloit was banned yesterday and they are back with a new one. 85.110.190.201 (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Same page under the sock attack nowadays. Yesterday 2 socks were banned (Socks of KurdoKardir and Escoperloit). 85.110.190.201 (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Whai

You delete a my page-a :(

I think I did something wrong in the execution of creating the article for ProTec, but I don't know what. The significance article didn't help much, so could you let me know what specifically was missing from the article?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ProTec — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyanGuy512 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,

CyanGuy512 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no credible claim of significance justifying an article about the company at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

But what does that mean, exactly? To me, it seems that this is a notable company and should be documented here on Wikipedia. CyanGuy512 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17724

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17724 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

MaranoFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Mar 10, 2017 13:40:46

Message: Are you OK with making the Standard Offer?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: No. He doesn't appear to take responsibility for his actions. He still calls one of his socks an "alternative account" and doesn't even mention the other two socks. He blames his socking on his mental disorder, which is not an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia. He also thinks he's indispensable: "The Meghan Trainor WikiProject will die without me."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I agree wholeheartedly with Bbb23 here; the unblock request is incredibly poor and lacks any sort of introspection or understanding of why they were blocked. It's essentially them arguing they shouldn't have been blocked in the first place.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are, of course, both correct! Just Chilling (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17721

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17721 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Mar 10, 2017 13:43:27

Message: Are you Ok with making the Standard Offer please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: His UTRS appeals (there's a long list of them) are all the same, brief and insincere sounding. However, he's been blocked for a long time. My preference is to reinstate Talk page access so the unblock request can be public and other administrators can more easily weigh in. Either you or I can do it. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll unlock their talk page. Just Chilling (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the work you do, much of which no one ever knows anything about. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

At least I know I have one fan. Thanks, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just one, Beebs. Hey, can you hold the fort this weekend? We're going camping! Have a great weekend, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought Beeblebrox was Beebs. Must be warmer down there. I haven't been camping since I was a kid. Enjoy!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Beeb one and Beeb two, we call that :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Question re: SPI/SmythsToys

Hi Bb.

About an hour ago you closed https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SmythsToys , I was wondering, how old must an edit be before it's classed as 'too old' / 'Stale'? Also, do CUs use the same timescale as the Clerks when the subject turns to IPs? I understand that the CU team have some pretty... 'Restricted', things they can do with IPs.

No problem on the result by the way, An answer to this will just help me avoid making SPIs with this same result in the future really. So people like you have less of the obvious ones to close, and such. :) MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 16:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with CheckUsers. Generally, we don't block IPs once they haven't edited in a few days. Some number of days or greater is obvious. Some can be in a gray area where the decision may vary from clerk to clerk. Unless there's something special about the IP, e.g., they are a proxy server or a webhost, the only reason to block an IP is to prevent ongoing disruption. If they've stopped, there's no point. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A few days, right. With the 'ongoing disruption' point in mind, I'll stick to 48 hours maximum as my rule of thumb for this. Thanks Bbb! MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mozaikka

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mozaikka

Sorry - the issue I assume is that it's too old to worry about? Or do the logs not go back far enough to do a CU? My issue, is that after 9 years, they've left a huge mess that needs to be cleaned up - which seems odd 9 years later. Someone tried to clean up much of it later in 2008, but I don't think he realised that socks were involved - and he/she was stonewalled by those that thought the subjects were notable, and seemed to have no concern that the content was entirely fictional. A sock finding would make it easier to deal with, or someone is going to get their back up about me blanking content. I've started prodding what I can, but other have gone to AFD before and passed.

I'm actually not that familiar with the sock and CU process - it's an area I've avoided for years. But I literally just happened to trip over this one the other day. Nfitz (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it's way too old to bother about. Blocking accounts won't clear up the "mess".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No point in blocking now ... but if they were identified socks, it would make life easier when trying to justifying blanking great portions of some of these articles - given the trouble the last guy who tried to clean up got from people. I guess I can call them suspected socks ... Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One more obvious sock to block

User:RAJKUMAR MISHRA FILM ACTOR is continuing the trend from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA. First Light (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

They are now blocked, along with a couple of IPs.... First Light (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:HelloImNotAdele

User:RunningForMyLife1010. His contributions for today make it screaming obvious. Please use a nuclear solution on his contributions. I've got one currently at AfD. Also nominated his userpage for U5 and blanked the talk page of another probable sock at User talk:CharlieProduction01 before I wised up and gave it over to you per deny. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I blocked Running. CharlieProduction hasn't edited since July 2016. I used massdelete to delete recently created pages by Running, but there are many older ones as the account has been editing for a while. I don't know how to do that except singly. Unless you or one of my page watchers knows an easier way, you'll have to tag the ones you feel should be deleted per G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My Cousin Vinny

Dear Bbb23,

I am trying to add a book sequel. You objected to the notion of books as sequels. I rephrased as "In Fiction." I think that fans of Vinny would benefit from knowing that there is a book with the same characters. My understanding is that it is original-screenwriter approved. I am tying it in to the publisher's page. What are your thoughts?

Yours, ZCB135

I don't really care about fans. Any content has to be encyclopedic, reliably sourced, and noteworthy. First, the book doesn't need a separate section. Second, it needs a secondary source (not the publisher's page) to make it potentially noteworthy. Even if those conditions are met, I'm not convinced it is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bbbb23, I'll re-upload with a secondary source. Fox certainly thought the book was worth doing—it holds the copyright. Will you please give it a chance when it's with a secondary source? Thanks. ZCB135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCB135 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Nisha_Rawal

This is not "promotion".

Your edit has been undone.(@Tigraan: - thanks)

Someone asked a question, and I answered it. It might be more of a refdesk question, but I left it on there because it also concerns the Wikipedia articles and their poor referencing. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Marine Raider Regiment

I was going through the RM backlog and saw this. Two SPAs commenting on a relatively obscure RM. Part of me is inclined to close as no consensus due to what looks to be WP:DUCK, but thought I would see if you had thoughts given your CU/sock experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about closed SPI

Bbb23, you recently closed a SPI related to user HughD and a large number of IP addresses. I'm concerned that HughD/the IP editor is still active despite the large number of Amazon IP's that have been blocked to deal with his disruptions. Here is one example (Amazon IP proxy) [[24]] and here is a recent example from a Chicago based IP [[25]]. Even when an Amazon IP is blocked another is spawned and the problems continue. Only semi-protecting articles has had any benefit. In those cases an admin needs to be convinced the IP is a sock/troll before they actually will protect the page. This IP editor has been hounding me in one form or another for several months. It would be helpful to have a opinion on the SPI based on the behavioral evidence when asking for page protection. The_Wordsmith found the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt and noted the long term hounding.[[26]], [[27]] Thank you. Springee (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but no finding will be made at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How would you suggest handling such a situation? Thanks Springee (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're not satisfied with having only one admin who agrees with you, I guess you'll have to find other admins. Also, if the IP edits aren't sufficiently disruptive to block them on their own or to semi-protect page(s), then I'm not sure the problem is as bad as you think it is. You might also consider requesting range blocks from administrators who are comfortable with imposing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Range blocks don't help when Amazon offers limitless IPs. Two more today. [[28]], [[29]]. Please note that HughD was block evading when he started this editing and has violated his topic ban several times. Springee (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag?

Hey, I was wondering why you removed the CSD G1 speedy deletion tag? The article is gibberish with no sources from a new editor. A quick google search and you can find its stolen off of ifrs.org's website. Thanks Pastorma (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a horrible article, but it's not gibberish. If you think it's "stolen" in its entirety, then you should tag it with G12.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

All props to new page patrollers who work a really tedious job, but it's really important to get CSD right.--v/r - TP 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Linguist111's rollback

Why did you remove Linguist111's rollback? I was thoroughly confounded as to why a trusted user of their experience level didn't have it, and was about to give it to them unprompted, when I saw they did have it until you removed it a bit over a month ago. Upon further inspection I can find no evidence in their user talk archives that you provided any sort of notification to them about the removal or any indications there or on any administrator's noticeboard of your reasons for it beyond the cryptic "abuse of privilege" in the log entry. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about this. I'm pretty sure that this and the discussion here had something to do with it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DoRD is absolutely correct, thanks. I wouldn't give rollback to the user "umprompted", but if they request it, the request should of course be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@DoRD and Bbb23: Thanks to both of you. Completely fair removal; the log entry just wasn't clear at all what prompted it to someone who wasn't aware of the previous discussion linked. I'll leave off maybe reinstating it until he requests it at some point, then. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanaag

Hello Bbb23, you seem to have reverted my recent edit of the Sanaag article, can you review the talk page and see my reasoning of my addition of partial control? Beany5454 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any other accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, i don't understand your response what do you mean other accounts? Beany5454 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Beany5454 is a username. It is also an account. Have you edited Wikipedia with any other usernames/accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you point me in the direction of someone...

..who understands pop-up preview images? I'm trying to see if they can be made to work with a section rather than a whole article. Anmccaff (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything or anyone. Have you tried the help desk? They're some remarkably strong technical editors who hang out there.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Two thirds of the time I've gone to such places I've met the kinda experts that make you think of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, but without the calm demeanor and balanced judgement; dedicated activists who are determined to fix the "REAL PROBLEM!!!!". I ask questions about how to fix a list I'd screwed up, the "Anti-ICON AVENGERS!!" swoop down and clear all the flag icons from the article, to give the most dramatic example...and after their "help", the real problem -or at least my real problem, actually remained. I point out that I've cleaned up a truly Martian new article - the author, who had created a flurry of work largely, IMO, to conceal a fawningly written autobiography, had managed not to get a single fact correct, and added misinformation steadily (Did you know that the US Coast Guard used to run locomotives through the surf on patrols? Neither did anyone else until someone decided that this article wasn't a POS, it was a DYK.) After I'd made it somewhat consonant with objective reality; I asked for help getting the German version, which was, and I suspect is, still keilanaworded-up from hell to breakfast. The "helper" proceeded to reintroduce crap from the German version, and eliminate what he saw as North Americanisms, which God knows you shouldn't see in an article about Jeeps. Nahh, asking for help in open forums here does not always pay.

Anyway, thanks for taking a look, and my apologies for the venting. Anmccaff (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Black Forest gateau

You don't edit, you revert - and edit while reverting. By changing the section's title, you accepted my argument, but nevertheless reverted my change. Is this the right way? Being right but being reverted nonetheless seems to contradict the general intentions of Wikipedia. Please clarify.--*thing goes (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "accept" your argument. I changed the header so your argument wouldn't apply. I didn't revert, either. I undid your edit and changed the header with an explanation, not an uncommon thing to do and doesn't imply misconduct on your part, no matter what you may think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Devonexpressbus

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Devonexpressbus/Archive, you stated, "If the IP resumes after expiration of the current block, I will block for longer as long as I get a heads up." Note that 86.183.182.67 (talk · contribs) is now unblocked and has resumed editing. I make no claim that this IP address is definitely that of the block-evading vandal, Devonexpressbus (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'd been watching him. So far, all he's done is blank his Talk page and post at a user's Talk page, which two edits aren't worth blocking him for. I'll continue to monitor him. Thanks for the reminder! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Bbb23, Just wanted to say thanks for dealing with the SPI as well as for running CU - I just assumed IL created 2 accounts and that was it - Never realised all 3 were socks too!, Thank god for CU I suppose but anyway just wanted to say thanks for your help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No Legacy section for Scalia

Are you sure about a no Legacy section at Scalia? Wikipedia has one for other public figures such as Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and the topic is already mentioned there in the Scalia article from a school noting his name. I mention this because the new play, constructive to Scalia, has received a good review from The New York Times, and has been broadcast nationwide in the United States on Public Television. Usually, that's notable. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: I didn't say it couldn't be included, just that it was UNDUE, meaning too much material and too much detail. I added it back in and pared it down, keeping the essentials. See what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(Putting on Talk Page Stalker hat) It's also quite early to speak of a "legacy" in the more general sense. The same play, if it has traction, might be legitamately given larger mention in 5 or 10 years, if it is seen as deserving it then. Unlike two of the other examples given, Scalia's "legacy" is still closer to Current Events than History. Anmccaff (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb; After the edit from User:Wehw I did contact him to defend your version of the edit here [30]. He appears to be in agreement now to include your version of the edit as long as it is presented as only 1-2 sentences long, as a useful addition to the Scalia article. After you see his comment on the link I just provided, then I will try to support the 1-2 sentence version you feel is best for the article. Your version is the one that is preferred in an even slightly shorter version. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: If you want to pare down the material still further and re-add it, that's fine with me. It's also fine to leave it out. I have no strong feelings either way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see an article written about the play before we add anything to Scalia. I think I'll just let others deal with the whole thing, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Move a Page

Hi Bbb23, You commented that my page doesn't have any promotional content. So, let me know how to move in article page. TIA Vivekanand selvaraj (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vivekanand selvaraj: Just because I found that your draft is not unambiguously promotional doesn't mean I think it's ready for article space. I've added a template to your draft so other more experienced editors can review it. When you're ready, just click on the button "Submit your draft for review!" and you will eventually get feedback as to the suitability of your article for Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

JUF.org is perfectly reliable

I find it offensive that you say it's not reliable. It's a reliable source. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Cheryl Grimmer

Should Disappearance of Cheryl Grimmer be moved to [[Cheryl Grimmer murder case]] now that a man has been charged with her murder and will be extradited to Sydney? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you asking me?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know who to ask so i picked at random. Sorry, Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Lucky me. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't bet on that :) you're only as lucky as me, it appears! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What are the odds? You were more helpful than I was.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Return of Hakkan....with an Anon IP.

Dear Bbb23 its seems Hakkan, Gala19000, Turk260000 Have returned. See here. User talk:194.171.34.234, its editing the Battle of Zeitun again and again. Mr.User200 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

194.171.34.234 Contributions
Mr.User200 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Regarding Admin @Bbb23: and article Willie Garson. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue, obviously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Gee, you go off-wiki for a few hours and look what happens, although I kinda suspected the editor might take me to ANI based on the message they left above implying I was anti-Semitic ("racist", the term they used at ANI is not what I think they mean). If they had reverted again, I would have taken it to BLPN myself and laid out all the problems with the edits. I had already reverted enough and didn't feel like relying on the BLP exemption for edit-warring. What I thought really odd was that just before this editor came along another editor added the same material. I wonder what triggered it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Govvy probably looks at all the changes on the article because of some quasi-COI. [31], [32] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And a rather thin skin. They're lucky no one proposed a boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I clearly was having an off-day! O,o Now today I feel like I got a stalker... :/ Govvy (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Residence

Sorry for the inconvenience of residence edits on Ryan Reynolds page. I've been noticing a lot o people have residences listed that they live LA or in NY. Just thought that was the new rule. Take care. SquareBob SpongePants (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

New user reviewing blocks?

Sorry to be a clueless bother here, but is user MaxSemenik, whose account was created at 13:02 Pacific time and who is issuing rulings on block appeals (you indicated you would do a CU in response to his request), a doppelganger of someone else? I smell something, but it could just be lunch leftovers. Thanks for your patience... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MaxSemenik was apparently an attempt to impersonate User:MaxSem. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked and checked; one less "to do" on Bbb23's lengthy to do list.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for noticing that I was suckered. I'll go block a few more socks - it'll make me feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bradford Bishop

You're wrong about that with the cats on Bradford Bishop. There are numerous articles where the murderer is listed under that category: to name a few, Christopher Scarver, Coy Wayne Wesbrook, Jeffrey Dahmer - if this is the case then those category pages need a massive clean up. Surely the more people who find the page the better? Bishop is related to 1976 murders in the United States so surely the category should be added? Inexpiable (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inexpiable: Why don't you take the issue to the Bishop Talk page and see what others think? I don't necessarily care about the articles you've listed (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), but other editors may disagree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

IndianBio

I have requested your input at User talk:IndianBio about a checkuser block which then triggered an autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Two things. First, the autoblock only had a few hours left before it expired (unless renewed). Second, after IB made the request, they were able to use another IP and edit without problems. All that said, I saw no compelling reason to keep the autoblock, so I've removed it. Thanks for your concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

An SPI......

Hi, I saw you recently said The data is unhelpful for a number of reasons that I don't feel like sharing. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MohanishB.Can you give any slight hint regarding the rationale/reason behind this non-disclosure?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What, you mean, tell potential puppeteers exactly what to avoid doing in future...?! ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Actually I could not figure out how a CU data would be unhelpful.Either it is a yes--which brings an end to the investigation(at least technically) or no--which brings factors of meat-puppetry etc. into consideration.Anyway, I am not very involved with the matters at SPI and if clarifying (even slightly) means that could be potentially exploited by puppeteers, there is little point in quenching my query! Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, can you please ckeck whether Youngodin (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of SThompson (talk · contribs). They are following the same pattern of being a SPA for nominating articles about people with aspergers/autism for deletion, also commenting on the Alis Rowe AFD started by SThompson, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this one could be persistent Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Request

If you have a moment I wonder if you wouldn't mind getting in the WP Time Machine and going back to a discussion during the early days of WP:WER namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Procedural suggestion. Prior to retiring, Dr. Blofield started a very lively, idea-filled discussion. I started to consider all the valuable ideas that are contained in the WER archives...it's mindblowing. So...I started to harvest discussions from the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention# Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can begin to harvest ideas for solutions rather than re-hashing them every couple of years but then realized it was a temporary location, at best. But, in the process, I ran across your old idea. I want to stimulate Action rather than just talking...and your idea seemed to fit the bill. Right now, all the great ideas are gathering dust in the archives. Maybe if we bring 'em out, dust 'em off, and put 'em somewhere easily accessible, something good will come of it. Anyway, no harm in asking. Buster Seven Talk 05:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: God, that was a long time ago. Honestly, I don't think I'm the right kind of person to help with editor retention. It needs optimists and I'm at best a realist, as well as being a bit cynical. I admire others who have different attitudes from mine, but I can't do much to change who I am. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Transcluded subpage deleted?

I created a subpage with the three revert rule called Wikipedia:Edit warring/Three revert rule and you deleted it. It was with the intent that it would be protected, since anyone (currently autoconfirmed) can edit the three revert rule. Why was the subpage deleted instead of protected, and why was the initial div tags returned? I do not want vandals to deface the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring. I thought the rationale for the 3rr to be protected the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer/script, where the subpage is transcluded onto the higher level subpage. Is there any difference between the two that makes one meeting CSD and another not? UpsandDowns1234 05:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that you wanted to change WP:EW by transcluding the 3RR rule rather than spelling it out in the policy. While the template still existed, you made a change to the policy to achieve your goal. It was rejected by another editor. I agree with the editor who undid your edit to the policy. There's no reason to separate the rule from the policy. Nor is there any special reason to protect that one aspect of the policy, any more than there is a need to protect the policy. It seems to me that your change would create more problems and solve none. Therefore I deleted it per G6. If you feel differently, the proper place to raise your idea is the Talk page of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Just a note that the deletion discussion for an article you deleted remains open. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick n shine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc

Hi Bbb23. Is it OK for me to add another registered account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hashim-afc#26 March 2017 to be checked or do I need to start a new discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You probably need to add it as another SPI to the existing case, but let's start with your telling me the name of the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to post the name here or would it better to do via email? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Either is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Hashim-afc seems to have admitted to socking at c:User talk:Hashim-afc#Iraq FA logo. Is that something which should be added to the SPI? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. That discussion may become relevant in the future to the user's behavior but it's not necessary to add it to the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Understand and thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, the evidence you presented was rather thin, although it wasn't a nothing. There's zero connection between the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Maybebop

Hiya Bbb23 - I just wanted to ask if you could reconsider the deletion of Maybebop. It was deleted under CSD A7, but as far as I can remember, the article made a credible claim of significance for the vocal group, and there is a wealth of German news sources available about the group. This makes me think the group may meet notability guidelines, and it may be appropriate to resurrect the article and hold an AfD discussion. Thanks for your time - Quasar G ^{t - c} 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Quasar G.: Actually, the article said almost nothing. On its face the article made no credible claim of significance. If you wish, I'll put it in your userspace for you to work on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm recalling incorrectly then... But yes, please do put it in my userspace. Quasar G ^{t - c} 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User: Elisa.rolle in AN/I board

Bbb23 you were so kind to close the discussion on the board, thank you. Not sure, really admitting my ignorance here, if that is something anyone can do or just an admin. As I said, I'm not editing anymore, I'm offering help to CaroleHenson if she wants to maintain an edit instead or reverting it, but I'm not actively modifying the encyclopedia. That is to prove, I do not want to leave people alone in cleaning my mess (even if I still do not think it was a mess, but alas, that is my opinion). I would love to help more, but I feel like that would be worst than best. Just to give you an example: there is a pretty clear sentence on that board "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion" but, still, people are commenting, and not in a polite way, below with a post-note (is that even right according to the policy? I do not know really). I do not want to engage in discussion on my competence, but in this same encyclopedia, someone is citing my work in at least 5 articles: Henriëtte Bosmans, Paul Danquah, Jewelle Gomez, Dick Leitsch and Labi Siffre. And please, believe me, I don't even know how to look at who did those references. My contributions on Wikimedia are used in multiple source on the net (About 56,600 results according to Google). My own website, that I use as a repository for info, bios and everything related to the LGBT community was visited 471.827 in February 2017 with 1.398.580 hits. I just wanted to help. But despite a nice message from CaroleHenson, "Welcome to Wikipedia", I did not feel this welcomed. I was attacked multiple time, to which I always tried to answer in a polite way, when I just dared to ask 1 question (and again I wasn't reverting the edit, I was just asking one question), the whole amount of my edits were reverted stating clearly the revert was without reason just on the assumption I wasn't able to edit Wikipedia; people who tried to support, where attacked too (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Skyerise)... Maybe I'm wrong, but the right approach to bring good editors to Wikipedia is what CaroleHenson is doing, not for sure Beyond My Ken. This is the last from me, I would have liked to reply to the board, but I do not think that is a good idea. I wrote to you since you were the one closing the topic, I do not even know which is your opinion, but I just wanted to explain myself without being misunderstood, hopefully --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Score (Carol Lloyd album)

Woah... May I ask why Score (Carol Lloyd album) was deleted without any prior notice or warning? Love Carol was nominated for deletion, not Score. It was even nominated for the GA review process. Carbrera (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

I have no idea what you're talking about (GA nom). You shouldn't be creating articles that are clearly subject to deletion per A9. Perhaps you should work on an article about the artist and see what that gets you first. As far as I can tell, the album articles talk more about the artist than the albums.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

But the article was never nominated for deletion per A9 in the first place. So articles can just be deleted from the mainspace without any prior warning or notice? That's new. Love Carol received said warning, not Score. And I disagree with you on that "the album articles talk more about the artist than the albums". For Score, it was her first album hence why there is info discussing her record deal (which I believe it what you are referring to). The least you could do is leave me a copy of Score in my userspace or something. Carbrera (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

And yes, Score was nominated for the GA review process but just removed a bit ago [33]. Carbrera (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I'd be happy to put it in your userspace if that's what you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you place it here. But can you answer me on why it was even deleted in the first place? Carbrera (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Kate Mulgrew

What context are you talking about. Three citations and you didn't seem to read any of them. She had a daughter in the mid 1970s that she gave up for adoption and was reunited with later.Koplimek (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

At a minimum, when was she reunited with her daughter? It would also be helpful to know how she found her daughter or if her daughter found her, how her daughter found her.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NEL. That context is not needed WP:REL to indicate she had a child out of wedlock or other. What should we state?.. when she conceived, how she conceived, what position she conceived, what time of day, month etc. This should have been an accepted comment even with the one citation and while I appreciate your criticism, it shouldn't have been removed.Koplimek (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

NEL is an essay, and I don't much care what it says. You obviously didn't read what I wrote and what context I felt was needed. I'm done with this conversation. The material has been challenged. If you want to include it, start a discussion on the article Talk page and see if you can obtain a consensus for your addition as presently written.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

BBb23, this is my last comment to you about this info on Kate Mulgrew's page. Also see WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. Stop reverting my citations/sources or I'm taking it to Arbitration WP:A/R. Koplimek (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that an editor with over 50K edits could be so seemingly clueless.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe you're clueless and ignorant. Usually edits as such are much appreciated. To be impartial to you, I made the notices to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Koplimek (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieval of deleted content

Hi Bbb23 wld like it if u could give me back the page Olila-Ebhugh Abureni so I could improve on it. Thanks Emmanuelebidan (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer that you ask the deleting administrator, RickinBaltimore. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Emmanuelebidan:, I've left the text of the page you were working on here:User:Emmanuelebidan/sandbox. Please use this space to work on and modify your article prior to publishing in the main area of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Is an explanation required for requesting Checkuser in a sockpuppet investigation? If it appears clear to any rational ornithologist that the two ducks are the same, should Checkuser be requested or omitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes to the first question, but I will run a check without an explanation if I think it's a good idea. Omitted to the second question unless you have an independent reason, e.g., it's an old sockmaster and every time a check is run, other accounts are found. There are other examples as well. I can't give you an exhaustive list. All the ornithologists I know are irrational, or am I thinking of bird watchers?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 - Do you mean that the ornithologists are absent-minded professors? I know that bird-watchers can be fanatics. I was referring to duck experts. Sometimes at AFC or NPP it is obvious that two accounts are the same person trying to get the same non-notable article published. Does this call for checkuser, or can an administrator simply conclude from the feathers that they are the same duck? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Eternal Sockie

Is this this? (Who might also be [this]. Anmccaff (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

PS There is some fairly loud quacking going on here. Anmccaff (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported cats

Golly58 is adding many pages to the category FYI, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'd have to examine them on an article-by-article basis to see if they're justified. It also matters whether the person is living because of WP:BLPCAT. Feel free, but I don't have the energy or interest. Harvey Korman just happened to be on my watchlist, I don't even remember why. Cats are a misery.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

What have I been doing that violates WP:Rules for Fools? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @TenPoundHammer: The rules state All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace (emphasis theirs) and you nominated a few articles for deletion. Further, for those of us still in the month of March you weren't unambiguous in some of your other nominations. Frankly, I don't think we should continue humoring this nonsense every April 1st. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• That only means to make sure that the XFD template is not actually on the page being nominated. I remove it immediately after Twinkle puts it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}

Think about the disruption you've already caused. Was it worth it? Did you have fun only for editors like me to push back? Maybe instead of using Twinkle and placing a nom only to delete it you could create the AfD page manually. Maybe you could consider using edit summaries to make plain what you're doing, instead of lazily using Twinkle. Perhaps you forgot that many editors like me are keeping a watch out for vandalism and your oddball edits create consternation. I totally admit to being a killjoy but you're just being unhelpful and no collegiality was born out of your frivolity. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Red Links

Red links are not silly they just mean that the article has not been written yet or the article got the name different than it appears in the other article.RichardBond (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say red links are silly - I said the red link you added was silly. If an article hasn't been written about that person in the last 100 years, somehow I doubt it will be written now. The second part of your statement (after the "or") I don't even understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders to persistent long-term abuse. 123.136.107.113 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please use WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your question

Is there a better place to reach you than a talk page?--ZiaLater (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

E-mail me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Byrzinski revert

Rather than a wholesale revert, would you please suggest or enact revised language? These are a series of rather specific remedies, and there's not a lot of obvious rewording options. Plus, everything is cited, and it's a key development.-- Mikalra (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations are serious. It's not my burden to revise the wording, and I disagree that there aren't "rewording options". I suggest you pare it way down as it's far too detailed. That will also help you avoid the copyright violation because you can summarize.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to take a look

Hello Bbb23, could you have a look at the recent activities of User:Handclean1 please? (see their edit history) Noindexing all pages related to an old sockpuppet farm seems highly suspicious. The previous SPI-case is probably too old for a CU check, but I'd appreciate any experienced advice - it could be even argued for a duck block. GermanJoe (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@GermanJoe:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Good catch. How did you notice him? Something on your watchlist?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The WT:AfD edit triggered me ;). Thank you for looking into this. GermanJoe (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Meat puppetry?

On the Dwdpuma SPI you've noted the check user results and that's fine. Can I ask about the meat puppetry issue that I canvassed? Was it the right place to note it? If not where do I start a discussion on it? 101.182.34.93 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where else you would bring it up. The problem is you didn't list the accounts you thought were meat puppets and why. BTW, edits in February are not stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about all of them, taking into account those that were related to each other but not to the master. Which section should it be in so it will be seen? Where I commented or on your result of the latest SPI? 101.182.34.93 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In the same section you commented before. Only administrators and clerks are allowed to post in the section where I posted the results.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully the comment I added gets attention and a response from an admin experienced in the area of meat puppet identification. 101.182.34.93 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Upworker using throwaway accounts

Hello. Can you please CU MissAdalie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? User:Bilby has already blocked them and suspects them to be a sock of Khocon but I'm not convinced. They created Back4app from this job on Upwork and it looks to have been taken by this user who has taken many other WP editing jobs since. (Just in case you weren't aware, posting these links on wiki is now explicitly permitted). Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The following accounts are  Confirmed to Khocon:
  • MissAdalie
  • Dortar (talk · contribs · count)
  • OdorRita (talk · contribs · count)
  • FIghtingFan (talk · contribs · count)
• I've blocked/tagged the unblocked accounts and retagged Khocon and MissAdalie.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Hello, I had summited a sock case concerning suspected IP sock 66.215.220.110 via Case: PeacePeace on March 28. Since then, the IP has continued to edit war in article First Epistle to Timothy. I did not request CU at the time I had submitted the case, but no adim has bothered to view the case and the IP is still constantly edit warring. I am now requesting CU. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, Admin NinjaRobotPirate has closed the case but no CU check. I would still like for you to do a quick CU and view the case yourself since you have CU rights. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi JudeccaXIII. It is not allowed for CheckUsers to compare IP editors with named editors, so CU cannot be used in this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector I had already made a case against the suspected master and IP here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeacePeace. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: yes I saw that just before I replied here. NinjaRobotPirate has already reviewed your evidence and responded. All I'm adding is that our privacy policy forbids revealing the IP address of a registered account, so there's nothing that CheckUser can add in this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I just pinged you...

...but on reflection I may not have provided enough info. If you're comfortable checking (it's kind of obvious from contribs and interaction, and it looks like you already warned them about something else last year), cool. If you'd like me to provide a stronger link, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I thought it was pretty obvious. The two accounts are  Likely. I can't confirm because SportsLair is hiding behind a proxy server. The editing of the two accounts is very suspicious. Personally, I would block. The technical and behavioral evidence together is strong enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was pretty much planning on blocking unless you came back with "Floq, you idiot, they're 100% Unrelated". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your quick help with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2. Perhaps I could ask for your help with another matter. I filed this SPI in February, and I'm wondering if there is any way to kickstart it forward. I'm concerned because the editor appears to be continuing to make disruptive edits. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A behavioral analysis is needed, and I'm not going to do it, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it please?

Do you mind actually discussing someone's dubious - discuss tag when you revert the edit that made it? And when a sentence begins with "He has accused", it's inherently obvious you need a primary source, in this case because it's frowned upon! Featherwinglove (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Dallidoman22 again, but making IP edits

I have reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dallidoman22. I am pretty certain this new IP editor ([[34]]) is the same person, because of a series of edits they have just made to pages about places in Essex and Hertfordshire that are very close to London. These edits have undone my edits and thus restore the Dallidoman22/socks preferred wording that these places are in the London Metropolitan Area (before mentioning that they are in the county of Essex or Hertfordshire). In addition, this IP has reverted a number of my edits on other, unrelated topics. Basically every edit they have made today (after only one previous edit, in 2015) is a revert of something I edited, so that looks like retaliation. Dubmill (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hello,
I spotted your revert here after I'd noted disruptive edits to several pages by the same IP (their contribs). The IP seems to have gone through several pages changing dates, spellings and other variables, frequently not per MoS. The fact that some of their edits are contradictory (between pages) makes me suspect that it is a low key form of deliberate disruption. Seems to have ceased editing in the last hour though. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've left a final warning on their Talk page and reverted all outstanding edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock?

Hello - you removed (diff [35]) my comment from the 'crat chat with the edit summary "remove sock." Would you please share your reasoning that leads you to believe I'm a sock? 170.34.104.12 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a CheckUser and policy prohibits me from doing what you ask. I suggest strongly that you stop editing (using either this IP or the other) as I may block you if you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Is there a way to correspond off-wiki where I can understand what it is you seem to think I'm doing? 170.34.104.12 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you should explain why you wanted to comment on the 'crat Talk page. It is not typical for an unregistered account.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

[36] The SPI script did not throw up an edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. With Jaredgk2008 I look for other accounts even if CU isn't requested, particularly if it's been a bit since the last check.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, Neil, please don't tag Jared accounts per WP:DENY. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully I remember... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ECP

Thanks for the sock block, and would you mind giving indefinite ECP to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert per my comments here? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think protection is justified for either article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? These are both frequent targets of Atomic Meltdown's sock puppets, and it doesn't look like he's going to stop socking anytime soon (if at all). Semi-protection doesn't seem to be enough when he obviously knows how to get around that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

IP with questionable editing

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) There is this IP making edits are very questionable and frequently not per MoS. Edits like this [37] [38] [39] [40] in rap related articles. Not all the IP's edits are disruptive, but however their grammar is terrible, and their changes add nothing constructive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect me to do. You have left no substantive warnings on the IP's Talk page. You took the IP to ANI about a week ago, and it didn't seem to grab anyone. I would at least start leaving relevant warnings for the kinds of edits they are making. I would also attempt to talk to them on their Talk page. If they don't respond, fine, but at least you would made the attempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, Please, feel welcome to check Samsparky (seems lik AbeEll or KevinAbdulqader is back). Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Many Words

Dear Bbb23, I'm sorry for the delay in my reply, but I've been very busy with my studies. Concerning your request for more evidence, here, and here are two examples: timing, fields of Interest, etc. Coincidence? Maybe, but... By the way, may I as well ask you to check if there is any link between those two and this sock Ishq Hawa Mein (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? See here, and also here for possible connection. Thank you.--Mona778 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mona778: The first two links in your post are not diffs. Nor do you explain very well what you mean. As for the possible connection to Ishq, Ponyo knows more than I about that case, but none of what you present is good evidence unless I do an analysis myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I meant their interest in specific topics. And concerning diffs, here are few diffs that might help you in your investigation. [41], [42], [43] Regards.--Mona778 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The account is indeed Ishq Hawa Mein and is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It helps to know people in high places. Thanks, Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

About the edit you undid to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hi, regarding the edit I made to the CSD page that you reverted, I only made the edit in an attempt to guide new users who had trouble understanding exactly why C2 was completely removed. (And if they clicked on that link, they would find out that C2 wasn't actually removed, it was just transferred to the CFD page.) If you can, could you please explain exactly why you undid the edit? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not a criterion for deletion. It's highly unusual for a new editor to be editing that page at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if it's not technically deletion in and of itself, perhaps some kind of notice could be placed on the page saying something like "due to the fact that this criterion rarely, if ever, justifies deletion, information on it has been moved to the Categories for discussion page" so as to help users newer than myself trying to understand what speedy deletion truly means on the wiki. ToThAc (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Allowed to answer?

Are you allowed to answer a question about a CheckUser case you yourself performed? Am I required to ask an uninvolved CU or admin? This has nothing to do w/ private user info. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell if I'm "allowed" to answer until I know the question. I don't know what you mean in this context by "uninvolved".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I opened a case at SPI earlier today, and you were the CheckUser. You determined that the suspected registered users were unrelated (or maybe "possibly" related?) to a sockmaster, but you also blocked an anonymous IP for one month. I was wondering what, if anything, the blocking of that anon IP means. Levdr1lp / talk 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, policy prohibits me from explaining that to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thought so. Hence my vaguely-worded post. Thanks for replying. Levdr1lp / talk 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my edits and apology

Let me tell you something really quick, please stop being angry to me and warn me about my vandalism edits or my disruptive edits regarding the article James McAvoy under "Personal life" it was announce that James and his wife are announcing to divorce. I never make an edit on vandalism. You're accusing me and you make me upset. I added a "reason" on the marriage template to be included, because the previous edit is good and it's not vandalism or even a disruptive edit. So I did calm down from editing so I can talk to you. You revert my edits that is not vandalism because you made a mistake and that makes me very "upset" and I didn't do anything bad. In order to resolve it, I am here to apologize. I am very sorry and I didn't disrupt the edits and I never made vandalism. Please accept my apology and you have to apologize to me for being angry and warn me from vandalism because you make me upset. Anyway, please accept my apology and then you must apologize to me so I didn't do anything vandal or disrupt, because it's just a small edit to add a reason on the marriage template to be included. So to finish my message please accept my apology and apologize to me for warn me for editing very badly this is an apology message. So reply me back as soon as you can. I'll be very happy with your reply. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very simply really. We can't say the couple are divorced until they are in fact divorced. Announcing isn't enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and did you accept my apology on my previous message? 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's okay. You don't need to apologize and I don't need to apologize. Let's just say we sorted it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar

I'm not quite sure why you removed my SPI. I have initiated very few sockpuppet investigations, but the instructions clearly describe the "re-opening" of a case. In this instance, a significant indicator has emerged. What in particular was there about the new indicator that you felt was unimportant? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the only way you can reopen with that user is if Ivanvector says it's okay and he's willing to revisit the allegations personally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Simply restoring the original filing from the archive kind of makes a mess of things, but if there's new info then we can do something about adding it in in a logical way. I'm not in a state of mind to analyze anything tonight, but if you'd like to leave a note on my talk page with your new "significant indicator" I'll take a look tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks to both of you. Ivanvector, I see you're Canadian. I wrote the history of Hull, Quebec, and how Tim Horton died. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Days

The Days are needed for this year only becuse. He hasn't been in for a year so tomrrow at like 11:20am he will be in for only one day. Not Just months Next year you can take away days and replace it with years please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

sorting cases

Hey Bb,

From this, I see you have assigned a master for which Vanja has just closed this case but you have assigned him to this case in the block log as seen here. We have two mixed cases...or? I'm about to hit the bed but I thought I would mention this before Vanja's case is archived. Maybe more to sort out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'm very tired, soon to go to bed as well, and at least right now I can't follow what you're saying. We'll both have to look at it again later. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: In my opinion, everything is OK. In the block log of User:Ianfielding, Bbb23 mentined Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwdpuma because his socking was discovered while investigating that case, although he is unrelated to the master of that case. That's OK. Also, Alexiaprogo was found to be a sock of Ianfielding while investigating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123. I see no problem there neither. We often found unrelated socks of other masters while investigating Sockpuppet cases. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter is not responding, so I reverted his edit. Hope it's all right. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's all right. Your explanation above makes sense. I had perceived something was amiss but it wasn't. Thank you for looking into it and now I will be looking at that other case...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)