User talk:Bbb23/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bbb23. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

→

Question

Can you take a look at this users talk page I told him to be civil and I also asked him to not swear much here and I explained to him that removing notices on your own talk page unless if it’s archived for a reason and I get this [1] as a response. I’m counfused right now as I told him just be nice and civil. Anyways if you can get back to me it would nice thanks. Cheers A.R.M. 04:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ARMcgrath, they don't necessarily have a "right" to cuss you out, but they do have the right to remove notices from their talk page, with some exceptions. I suggest you leave it alone. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: thanks I just wanted to let him know just be a little chill here. Cheers A.R.M. 04:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Undelete for reworking

Welldone dear wikikeeper user:Bbb23, I apologize for the violation of common editing ethics by unambiguously infringing copyright while working on the deleted Laolu Akande article. Kindly undelete it for me to work on it as soon as I get a notification about the action. I appreciate.

Danidamiobi (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A copyright infringing deleted article cannot be restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Premature ANI close

Hello Bbb23. Maybe you can find your answer here [2]. Thanks anyway.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You have about 70K edits on Wikipedia. You've been editing since 2009. I would think that someone like you would have handled the IP situation differently. You and the IP had a dispute a few weeks ago. With nothing in between, he tells you to fuck off. For that you go to ANI? You don't even ask an admin to block the IP. Instead, you ask a philosophical question. In any event, unless the IP continued, there would be little basis to block them. What you could have done is warn the IP for the personal attack and then wait and see if they persisted. If they did, go to WP:AIV or at that point, if you wish, ANI. If it had happened to me, I would have just shrugged it off as someone behaving like a jerk, but I can certainly understand a warning. Now you've belatedly warned the IP, which is not very useful, it appears mostly so you could get in your complaint about me. And just in case I didn't notice, which I didn't, you took it here with not-very-veiled sarcasm ("thanks anyway"). Surely you have better uses of your time? I'm not trying to be offensive, btw; I'm using this as an opportunity to help you, even if my statements aren't as warm and fuzzy as you might like.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bbb, thank you for closing that ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A new mutual friend

An editor currently using IPs from the range 2604:ca00::/32 has taken a hearty dislike to both you and me. This resource indicates that the IP is some sort of proxy/webhost, and I'm sorely tempted to block the range, or at least a sub-range, but would like your expert opinion first. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This looks like IP address spoofing. The wrong hextets are changing in the IP addresses - the last 4 hextets are the same. I can't quite figure out what's going on. The range is very large though, and registered to Google. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't notice the thing with the last hextets. Strange indeed! Did observe the Google name – enough to make me tremble. :( Favonian (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I know whom you mean and I take it as flattery that the IP dislikes both of us. I see no problem with blocking Google addresses, just as we block other addresses that are improperly used, e.g., Amazon, Facebook, etc. We block equally wide ranges of "legitimate" providers, e.g., T-Mobile, the American version of Jio, at least in terms of how busy the ranges are. Most of these kinds of ranges are soft-blocked, though, unless there's obvious abuse by registered accounts - that part of it would have to be checked by a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Anticipating a probable joe job

See User talk:TheBraveSFT#November 2018 where I guessed that a third party was trying to get another editor in trouble who had been previously reported at WP:AN3. If you disagree with my speedy assessment (per the similarity to the Nukleon case) I'll open a regular SPI. I left the 'innocent party' unblocked but put an indef on the probable joe-jobbing sockpuppet. Though I have no verification of who the sock actually is. Only you might know that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: TheBraveSFT is

Likely Architect 134 but definitely

Unrelated to GalahadFLT. I would not unblock TheBraveSFT--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

E

Thanks. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This static IP (which is part of a range, Special:Contributions/62.60.60.0/22, belonging to Fujitsu Services Ltd in London), was used by E last March (the just blocked account admitted to having been the IP in this edit summary, saying "I removed the test" while referring to the IP removing the BLP violation Bajyerarsa made as their very first edit...), which might be worth noting, since he might use that range again. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/EPSOMNUTCRACKER is the latest sock (see contributions), and might yield an IP or two... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for blocking that SPA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If I may defend myself for a moment

Did I engage in an edit war? Yes. But I also gave clear reasons for my edits from the get-go and tried to open a discussion with both Guest S52pq and the unregistered user sockpuppeting the account, who apparently eventually descended into personal attacks if his removed edit summaries are anything to judge by. TucLen (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@TucLen: The IP edits that had an edit summary saying "edit summary removed" were not personal attacks. I don't know why, but the IP added the edit summary language. The summary was not deleted by an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TucLen: Did you start a discussion on the article talk page to discuss your concerns ? No you did not. Your rational for reverting countless times is not valid. Actually this is blatant and inexcusable, you should be blocked. I went to 3RR/N and was going to click "submit", but then decided that would be stepping on Bbb23's toes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Guest S52pq

Hi,

What I meant by the users edit warring with themselves is that it seemed odd to me that the first IP address was already edit warring with an experienced editor, and then a new registered account shows up out of nowhere and starts engaging in the edit war too. To me, that says that the account and the IP are the same person. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 12:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/Buddy754

After you blocked them, they started playing around on their talk page constantly – making edit requests, making personal attacks, copying their SPI page, claiming that they've unblocked Brandon somehow, copying Brandon's talk page, saying that they shouldn't be blocked – and keep doing so. Time to revoke talk page access? I think it's clear that they're not going to do anything useful or meaningful with it and most of the other socks have already had TPA revoked for the same reason.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Done --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

CU Request

I noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hellishscrubber after looking at the edit history of New York University. This account seems to me to be Mangoeater1000 to me (see the LTA page too). I can make a formal request at Mango's SPI page if you prefer, but thought I'd ask here first. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually you can't file an SPI to make that kind of request, but it's immaterial as the two masters are not related.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you for looking! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

UK sock

The recent new user doing similar like this. 2402:1980:8241:25B5:2165:C28C:F9F3:E776 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi there, you blocked one sockpuppet recently by the handle of User:Milktaco. The same user seems to have another account by the name of User:Dividing. If you check the contribution log for the latter, you'll notice the pattern of dates is rather odd as well; seems like he was saving this up for sporadic or when-needed use. DA1 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you want, but Dividing hasn't edited in over a year.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI question: Zeshan Mahmood

Hi, is there any chance you might be able to answer this question? – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the global block, I'd say you can G5 any new pages created by the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Delta Dawn (murder victim)

About Delta Dawn (murder victim)?

There's some really poor phrasing in this article which at the moment tells the reader that the baby girl was drowned before someone tossed her into the river. Can you re-write it as an I'm an IP? Also the article needs a general proof-read/grammar-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.163.201 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Quacking

Blocked sockdrawer Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) / Paltryforhire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). New account Leyna010208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (which was created on June 17, 2018, same day sock Nyaja Aibhlinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef-blocked). Same rambling posts, obsessing on same points, on same pages: Blocked sock Nyaja, New User along with tendency to delete or move talk page content. Quack. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

New account probably deleted the above talk page comment when they saw they'd interacted with that user before as JDMAVkwd. Nyaja original account: JDMAVkwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (that she said she'd lost the password to). Pattern of deletion when some degree of overlap user considers too much is noticed is same as shown by other sockdrawer accounts. Confrontative with some of us, while avoiding notice by others is one of patterns. P.S. Seeing that the new account was created on the same day as the indef. makes me think editing pattern might be the main key here. On that front I'm already convinced. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Leyna010208. They are

Confirmed to previous socks. I didn't tag because many behaviorally related accounts were blocked, but the technical data is messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Messy is putting it mildly. Appreciate your work, as always. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Article restoration

Hi, in Feb 2015 you deleted the article National Forum for Biological Recording - can you restore it to my userspace so I can work on it please. I understand at the time it was probably entirely primary sourced - unfortunately NFBR are a not for profit involved in ecological work, so most of the reliable secondary sourcing is going to be in specialist publications or scientific papers. I've been asked by someone connected to them to look into it as they didn't know what the problem was - which appears to be a combination of role/organisation accounts (they didn't know were a problem) COI (which they didn't understand) and the requirement for secondary sourcing (which afaik never got to be explained to them because of being blocked for being an org account....) regards Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Sorry for the late response. I'm afraid I forgot. The article would be four sentences and a link to the organization's website if restored - in other words, a big nothing. Do you still want it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no hurry, dont worry about it though. I will start afresh. It looks like from the earlier deletion those 4 sentences may have been copied from the website - which while it would have likely been within the user who created the original article authority to release, it would be better to start from scratch. Cheers for looking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Greetings! Please delete the violent edits by an IP user on my talk page. Also delete my reverts of those edits. Thanks. --Binod Basnet (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Done --Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sharif ud Din

This is an article containing to much history. This person is decendent of legendary Qais Abdur Rashid(he is 37th decendent of king saul of israel) also decendent of to many kings he was also a king and he is also ancestor of to many kings and tribes he .this is a major subject wikipedia need it. Durrani khurasan (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with Paul Atherton entry

Hi Bbb23 I tried to correct what I thought was blatant vandalism from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.24.122.58 on the page of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paul_Atherton as all the edits are in relation to UKIP voting or him being homeless and all are unsubstantiated.

I'm not an experienced editor and you reversed my initial correction.

Would you please either assist or explain what I'm doing wrong please?

176.35.133.132 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That would have been a good idea, but it's not what you did. You changed the lead sentence to something that was incorrect and ungrammatical. I've now removed what you wanted to remove. Thanks for pointing that out. I've also done a little work on cleaning up the copy errors in the article. It's pretty poorly written, but I don't feel like spending the time to do a good job of it. Maybe someone else will, but I won't hold my breath.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I simply removed the word "was" and "which folded in the early 2000's" which were inserted by https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.24.122.58 and clearly inaccurate (as the company was founded in 2005). That was what you reversed of mine and as you did so literally a minute after I published, I stopped editing in order to discuss it with you. Thanks176.35.133.132 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

After your change, the first sentence read "Paul Atherton (born 20 March 1968) managing director of Simple (TV) Productions." As you can see, there's no verb in that sentence. Putting that aside, does Simple (TV) productions exist? If not, when did it cease to exist? Are there reliable sources for any of this (the archived source in the article is unhelpful)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Aussie sock

Can you check the SPI page? 2402:1980:8245:FE33:2CF9:6347:D194:7765 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

ClassifEYE: A7 does not apply to a Product or Service/requesting AfD

While researching & writing ClassifEye "Eye" (the software product) I encountered Google hits for "EYE" (Baader's hardware-based product); both involve using cameras for classifications-

"Eye" for fingerprint authentication
"EYE" for filtering out damaged chicken wings, bruises, other unfavorable situations.

My original goal was to write "Eye" but I started "EYE" so others could help it along if I didn't do enough to make it Wiki-worthy.

A7= No indication of importance (people, animals, organization, web content, events)

That makes the A7 seem like a mistake.

As for G11 (G11= Unambiguous advertising or promotion), it is not unambiguos, and I'd like to be given an AfD opportunity. Wiki even has WP:HEY to prove the value of AfD.

Speedy, from the little I've read, is for lightening the load at AfD.

I'm aware that each article has to stand on it's own, but I've learned from watching a similar process with https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bashow

which is also about a started on this, also worked on that.

(Bashow is a word, albeit not in standard English) Bashow is just a section in Shidduch, but it's how I came (via Google false "hits") to work on "David Bashow"

AfD?

Pi314m (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having great difficulty in understanding what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I requested an AfD. You tagged the speedy w. "(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)" and (a) it doesn't seem to match A7's criteria list; (b) I tried to explain it not being G11. Sorry if not clear/not to the point, including requesting AfD. Pi314m (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You still make no sense, but I assume you want the article restored so it can go through the AfD process. That's not how things work. You haven't justified restoring the article in the first instance. As for the A7 issue, I construed the article to be in fact an article about the non-notable company that makes the product and that your focus on the product was an attempt to game the A7 issue. Just as your "link" to the company was bogus as there is no article about the company.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

OK,"guilty until proven innocent." Would |page=5 of https://ecitydoc.com/download/newsletter-newsletter-2_pdf (instead of ISSU.com) have been better? Pi314m (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Close challenge

Bbb23, I object to your close of the WP:ANI#GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction. Serious concerns about GiantSnowman use of mass rollback have been raised and have not been adequately resolved. Contrary to your close statement, he explicitly said that he would continue using it in greyer areas (such as this incident and some others highlighted by other users). I am seeking input from the community about this issue, regardless of whether you think that administration action is going to be taken. This reminds me of the time six years ago when you did the same thing when I reported an admin for edit warring.

Please re-open the discussion and ~~quit being so heavy handed~~. Thank you.- Mr X 🖋 15:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: (talk page watcher) Bbb23's close is entirely appropriate. GiantSnowman has acknowledged that their use of the mass rollback script was inappropriate and has promised to discontinue using it in light of the complaints. The rollback permission can't be removed from administrators, so keeping the thread open to harp on it more is just harassment at this point. If you want to bring this to Arbcom to pursue having GiantSnowman's admin permissions removed then do so, but I think you know how that's going to go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I said I'd stop in grey areas - my exact words were "I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas." Like Ivanvector says this is beginning to feel like harassment now. Giant Snowman 15:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"be far more careful" is not semantically equivalent to "stop". How do you not realize that? And no one is harassing you; they're asking you to use the tools responsibly from now on. You have given flippant responses that don't address the magnitude or seriousness of the concerns. You should only be using mass roll back for unambiguous vandalism or sockpuppetry, and you consult with others otherwise. - Mr X 🖋 16:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. Numerous editors/admins have closed/said to move on, and the editor in question accepted my apology and explanation hours ago; you're basically just piling on at this stage. Giant Snowman 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

~~You're being defensive and avoiding what I actually wrote.~~ You were asked if you would stop using mass rollback, and you answered that you would be far more careful about using it in the gray areas. That's not good enough. - Mr X 🖋 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose that GS should be banned from use of the mass rollback tool, you should start a new discussion (below the closed one would be a good place) proposing that as a formal sanction. If you continue going to various places and demanding that GS do what you say, I'm going to block you for harassment. Your choice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I didn't invite you or GS to this discussion and ~~I don't particularly give a shit what you think. Bye.~~ - Mr X 🖋 16:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to jump in here. The only reason I didn't respond to MrX was because of their approach, not because of the facts they set forth. MrX is correct that GS did not say he would stop using the script in gray areas, only that he would be more careful. My closure should have been better worded to reflect that, and GS should either acknowledge that's what he'll do henceforth or say, no, he'll stop using the script except for socks and vandalism. From my point of view, I would have closed the discussion anyway because I believe that GS's being more careful in the future is good enough. I see no reason to throttle GS's use of the script as it sounds like he has already taken to heart comments by others.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against GS but this abuse of rollback and his flipant excuses and offer to be more careful in "grey areas" (this was not a grey area) would be treated much differently if he was a regular user. For example - blocked users have to fully admit wrong doing and promise not to repeat to get an unblock, regardless of the truth of the matter. A non-Admin might have been blocked or at least topic banned - it has happened to me on far less evidence. Another case of Admin privilege, a too quick close and no sanctions to prevent further abuse. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said to MrX, the approach here is the same whether admin or not: propose a restriction and have the community debate. There are plenty of administrators who are under editing restrictions imposed by the community because of issues with their editing or their use of this-or-that non-sysop tools (as the massrollback script is - you can use it if you want to), and based on how that discussion was going, if you were to propose that GS should be banned from use of massrollback, you'd find some support. But chasing an editor (admin or otherwise) demanding that their acknowledgement of the issue isn't "good enough", particularly when the user who was actually harmed has already moved on, is just plain harassment, and no editor (admin or otherwise) should have to tolerate it. That's my opinion regardless of whether you invited me to the party. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize to Bbb23, GiantSnowman, and Ivanvector for my rudeness, and if I came across as harassing, aggressive, or just annoying. That was not my intention. It's quite likely that my perspective on this issue is distorted, so I'm going to disengage and let cooler heads prevail. Please accept my apology.- Mr X 🖋 18:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted, many thanks. Giant Snowman 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Hi, I'd like to know if it would be appropriate to run a check on the recently blocked IP User:81.132.51.61 and User:The Original Statto (who I believe previously edited using User:SMADG85)? The two have recently made similar edits to the leads of association football biographies, see this and this, and similar edits based on ethnicity, see this and this. The IP decided to resort to unambiguous vandalism before being blocked. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) sorry, but no. The privacy policy prohibits connecting accounts to IP addresses in this way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Ivanvector is correct, but that doesn't prevent you from blocking the named account based on your own behavioral analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

GRP

Hi Bbb23 -- saw your post on Bsadowski's page. The answer to the question you seek is here. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He's also the same as this guy, if you need a SSP case. There are probably a bunch of others that aren't linked to him, but he has made thousands of socks over the years. He's globally banned here. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Antandrus: A musical voice from the past! What a pleasure. Thanks for the history lesson, all before my time of course. I followed all the dots you gave me. Is there a user named George Reeves Person on another project? Doesn't exist on en.wiki. Why isn't Projects (talk · contribs · count) the master (it was the oldest account I could find based on what you provided)? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You know -- that's a really long story. I'm not sure why the "GRP" name stuck. One of his idiosyncrasies is that he wants to be perceived as a group of different people, and keeps renaming himself -- "no, I'm named George! No, Goran! No, Gogi! No, Goorge!" etc. One of his early obsessions was with George Reeves and it kind of stuck. "BoxingWear" was the sock that got the most name recognition though. He's still quite active, on various Wikimedia projects, harassing and spamming links to various junk he has splattered around the internet. He was in jail for almost three years (harassment, stalking, threats, etc.) but got out in March, and started right back up here, alas. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23 -- quick followup request -- could you take a look at this and swat any sockpuppets? He usually makes several if he finds an unblocked IP. Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Found one other: Championguys (talk · contribs · count). You might want to contact -revi to request global locks for both.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

why

Why are you encouraging their behavior? My concern was legitimate, and they treated it like it was nothing, and called me an asshole. Is this what communication has come to? -- 1989 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you'd do better to think about your own style of communication, which was, at least in this instance, subpar. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as a matter of fact, I'd rather not take advice from someone who's too friendly with them. Good day. -- 1989 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Need to take action on User:Helveticus96

So since you're closing the current case, what will be done about the clear meatpuppetry between the two users? They both clearly know each other through Czechia Initiative and Vladimir Hirsch. Also, what will be done about the clear WP:Conflict of Interest edits from him if not? If paid by "Czechia Initiave," and most of his edits pertain to proliferating that name, then I feel that is a clear violation. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about rv sockpuppet rollback

Hello Bbb23,

Thank you for your help in updating edits on the Melissa Beowulf page. I don't know much about sockpuppets, your comment said rv sock? Is "rv" for remove?

The change that they made was to "fetchwikidata = ALL" in Beowulf's infobox section. I read the WikidataIB page, but I don't understand what this coding actually does?

Sorry for the basic questions, I tried to find the answer and looked at the investigation log for that user, but I couldn't work it out.

Thanks so much for your time! SunnyBoi (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Goodnightmoon4 (talk · contribs · count) is a sock of Slowking4 (talk · contribs · count), who is included in my edit summary. By the way, adding an infobox with one entry in it has no value, and if I noticed it in an article, I would remove it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at this one?

If obvious sock isnt being obvious, i’d be pretty surprised, although it isnt quite a dead cirt. Qwirkle (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Evidence?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Shared edit space, writing style, and even selection of wikinym. Appearance of new just as the walls were closing in on the old, just like last time. All behavioral, IOW. Qwirkle (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: For me the kicker, also behavioural, unfortunately, was the risen-from-the-seafoam, fully-fledged-at-birth editing. No way its a newbie, only question is which ungolden oldie it might be. Qwirkle (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant evidence in the form of diffs comparing the user to either Cirt or Sagecandor. Wikinym? Do you mean the usernames?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Without getting too much into beans and noses, take a look here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/ptools/intertwined.php?project=enwiki&user1=Yetishawl&user2=Sagecandor |Qwirkle (talk)

I don't use that tool; I use another. The link doesn't work properly anyway as it shows only one of the user's edits, not the other's and not, more importantly, on what pages they intersect. In any event, I already ran a similar tool and saw the intersection. It wasn't much, but given that the "new" user has only 44 edits, one can't expect much. Here's what I suggest: reopen the case and report the user. The SPI team will take it from there. Finally, if you have more evidence of similarity that you don't want to post publicly, e-mail me. I won't reply, but I'll review it and take it into consideration after you've filed at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the link, even if leaves the URL nekkid. Take a look: a few token edits by the prepped new sock, carefully separated from SC’s, but on an integrated topic. Once Cirtcandor gets through with his sad goodbyes, the new guy takes off. I’ll see what they say at the SPI. Qwirkle (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A question: Is there a way (for you adminical types) to search old SPI technical date? I was wondering if a later user could get compared to the Skepticanonymous sock drawer as a whole, even though they only began large scale editing after Morty/Pearson was blocked. At the moment, the question is academic, not practical, since the account in question is indeffed for behaviour issues, but blocks can get lifted, Qwirkle (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC) PS:To give a...no, the...example, look at this. Qwirkle (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it unless the user is unblocked or at least has made an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

i think there is another user impacted by this, and a decent number of articles. Qwirkle (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard discussion re: List of bitcoin forks

Hi, I noticed you closed the discussion I posted on the administrator's noticeboard, saying that content disputes aren't handled there. I had previously attempted to request dispute resolution on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, however it was closed there by someone saying "DRN does not handle cases which are about conduct" and recommended that I "file a complaint at ANI".

So what would you advise I do? DRN doesn't handle conduct dispute, and you're saying ANI doesn't handle content disputes. So what do I do in a situation that's about both? Fresheneesz (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I advise you to drop the whole thing. First, every editor disagreed with you. Second, there have been no comments on the Talk page since December 3. You don't appear to have consensus for what you want, so move on to something else. If you refuse to give up, you should go back to DRN and refile, as was suggested, avoiding all the comments about other editors, their motives, etc., and just put forth the nature of the dispute. Finally, I'm not going to mediate this dispute, so don't think of carrying on a quasi-mediation discussion on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"don't think of carrying on a quasi-mediation discussion on my Talk page"

You really could use a less crotchety tone. You don't know me. Why assume I'm gonna do some stupid BS? How about you assume a little good faith? Fresheneesz (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your advice on TLA and harrassment

Reference Shenphen Rinpoche on which you kindly assisted a few months ago when I was unfairly accused of using a sockpuppet by the subject or his lawyer, and I was blocked and then unblocked by yourself. A newly registered editor has now posted promotional material sourced on a promotional piece written in the first person and published by the subject's personal organisation here, asserting that it was from a "neutral" source, so I reverted it. The new editor reinstated it today with the following summary: "(Undid revision 872358814 by MacPraughan Revert was biased, because info was factual, neutral and from neutral source. And given MacPraughan's previous attacks against the subject, and the court case started in France against him for slander in this matter, I don't think he should have any right to come close to this page ever again!)"

Thus far I know nothing about any court case pending against me in France (where I live) for slandering the subject (in this article) but knowing the subject's background as a security expert of some sort, with connections, I do not take this lightly. I therefore hesitate to get into an edit war with this editor and seek your advice. For the moment I have let this edit stand. What do you think I should do? Please advise. Thanks.MacPraughan (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock and reverted their edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

115.135.130.182

Hi Bbb23. I don't know how to deal with this, but this IP 115.135.130.182 seems identical with banned User:Rameezraja001. He is again filling Talk Pages with nonsense and vulgarity (Edit summaries "Greek himation fallacy", "Hellenistic realism is BS"), and is starting to damage several articles. Can something be done? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You can try reporting the IP to Bishonen who blocked the named user to see if she agrees with you. The other option is to file a report at WP:SPI with the named user as the master and the IP listed as a suspected sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I took a look, but I don't think their style is that similar, nor their interests. It could be a sock, but I don't think it's an obvious sock. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC).

Thank you!! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Miss Multinational 2017

Please restore the article. If there is any sourcing on the current patent, then the sequence will be valid. That I what I said at AfD. Just because someone has a problem with the previous article creator doesn't mean the article itself is not valid. Trackinfo (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"If there is any sourcing on the current patent, then the sequence will be valid." I have no idea what that means. "Just because someone has a problem with the previous article creator doesn't mean the article itself is not valid." That's a quaint way of referring to a LTA sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about LTA (or TLA) sock. Just restore the article to my sandbox, as would be proper per my request. I will deal with cleaning up the article and restoring it. Trackinfo (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't respond well to attitude. I'm sure you can find someone else to restore it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've got plenty of attitude when necessary. This is not attitude. Your refusal to restore following normal procedure is a bad attitude on your part. I simply disagreed with your removal of content, whatever your grounds. I am not a party to LTA TLA whatever sock. Don't know about it and don't care. I am not a blocked editor so I will properly restore the content under my signature. Content is what I am concerned about. You are now making me go around you to ask for its restoration. Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: For the record, "LTA" is not a good thing, as it generally means the editor isn't just indefinitely blocked but banned outright, in which case it's policy to revert and/or remove anything they contribute in defiance of their ban. I share Bbb23's mysticism about the "[...]current patent[...]" line in your argument, though I suspect this is autocorrect playing silly buggers, given the subject in question is a beauty pageant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the autocorrect typo. The word is "pageant." As Bbb23 was bandying around slang terms like TLA or LTA and sock, I figured it was another slang. As I said, I don't know and don't care about the originator of the content, I think the content belongs here. Since there is a succession of Merge/AfD discussions trying to destroy this particular content, I am being aggressive in trying to retain it. That is what I do. We have had years of other editors trying to demolish ALL content related to beauty pageants. Its not even my subject, I'm just playing a hero defender for them so they don't get trampled. Using G5 seemed like a (yet another) sneaky back door to evade a defensible procedure to keep the content alive. Trackinfo (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, the article was deleted under WP:G5. Your coming here making aggressive demands, particularly with language that makes no sense, is not going to accomplish anything except alienating everyone who reads this thread. If it's not even your subject, then drop it. There was no "Miss Multinational 2017"; the first Miss Multinational was 2018 [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

EDITS RELATED TO VYAPAM SCAM

Dear Bbb23 please help me understand the reasons to rollback my edits to the below page? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Vyapam_scam#Deaths Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhbhardiya (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't keep those kinds of lists in Wikipedia articles; they aren't noteworthy (doesn't matter if they're sourced, although unsourced is worse).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

IP address suspected as as a sock puppet

Hii Bbb23.. Based on the edited history performed by this IP: 36.79.238.67, I suspect the IP as a sock puppet of Deanarthurl. I hope you can check it again.. Thank you Stvbastian (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages

Hi Bbb23! You recently deleted a good-ton of pages created by Lukachupi, a sockpuppet of Bangrubhai, under the G5 criterion of speedy deletion. My views about the aforementioned criterion notwithstanding, I think that it was a good decision, however, I went through his or her creations and I am of the opinion that certain pages created by him or her were definitely about notable subjects, namely:

Pratyush Sinha — About an Indian Administrative Service officer (career civil servant), who served as Chief Vigilance Commissioner and as a secretary to the Government of India.
Mahesh Kumar Jain — About an incumbent deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India.
Yogesh Kumar Tyagi — A vice-chancellor of the University of Delhi.

Now would you be so kind as to reinstate these pages? Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Done --Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:DCsghost

Hello, a note at WP:AN showed me that you closed off talk-page access while there was an outstanding unblock request. Did you intend to close access while leaving the unblock request? No objections, just curious. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, if you decide to make a reply, please make it at WP:AN#DCsghost‎, not here — I'm shortly to be getting on a bus, and I won't likely have Internet access until tomorrow afternoon my time (it's 7PM here). Nobody's objecting at WP:AN, so don't feel like anyone's challenging you. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jaiden animations

In looking at this new creation, Jaiden animations, I spotted that it was a recreation of Jaiden Animations. Special:WhatLinksHere/Jaiden Animations shows Mylodana a sock of Lapitavenator (talk · contribs). While this makes me suspicious of continuing sockpuppetry, I note you ran a CU on 27 Nov. Am I right in assuming this would exonerate the other creators/editors at that date? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The answer to the CU question is complicated. Putting that aside, other than the one-article connection, I don't see anything else about Jhillardai that would lead me to believe that they are a sock of Lapitavenator. Their editing pattern is unusual, as is the recreation of that page, but that's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

On a single user basis, I'd agree. As part of a stream of users trying to recreate the article under various titles (Jhillardai being the 7th), it starts to look a bit concerted, and perhaps coordinated. It just gives me an itchy feeling - thanks for scratching. :-) Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for the early morning smile.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom

"The stats are rather wierd on analysis - 2&3 on supports fail, only 1 person got over 50% support votes, 2-6 on neutrals succeed." You really don't understand that? Happy to explain if that's the case. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pain in the butt

It took me forever to get the damn decline template right on that page (not helped by being on mobile.) Also add that it substitutes the CU needed template, and it’s even more a pain to decline. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Referring back to the discussion at WT:SPI that went nowhere, why can't it be fixed???? I think it's the 5th ring of hell that's reserved for templates. Drives me batty.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed {{checkuser needed}} from {{checkuserblock-account}} and cleaned up the documentation to match the default appeal (public). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: As King Kaspar sang in Amahl and the Night Visitors, "Thank you, thank you, thank you!"--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! You deleted a sandbox page of mine and I would like to contest it

Hello, I'm an SFSU student and I was using User:Ahugebox/sandbox2 to edit my article before moving it to live. Since, I have moved it to live, but the article is not perfect and would like to make all the edits in my sandbox before migrating them over again.

It was deleted for ("duplicate" of article created to promote subject), but I do not think it was. It was being used to hold the reviews from my fellow classmates for my grade.

May I restore my page? I'm sorry to ask, but it would probably be easier for my professor to see everything consolidated in one place, seeing the work only I had done. Thanks in advance!

Ahugebox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahugebox: Do you know Bulaklak64 (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not personally, no. But given their edits, it looks like the subject themselves. I removed their unsourced information. Ahugebox (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Great. I restored the sandbox and then removed all the edits by the sock back to the last update by you. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Ahugebox (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles about drag queens

Hi there! Sorry to bother you. You judged me on this case of alleged sockpupetry. I'm not as familiarized with Wikipedia in English as I am with Wikipedia em Português, so I wonder if you could help me.

Some articles about drag queens, specially alumni of Rupauls Drag Race (TV Show) will probably see a lot of activity in the coming weeks. A new season just started and some old participants are in the spotlight again. I believe this is the reason a lot of articles are being created/modified right now, and not because of sock/meatpupetry.

At the same time, they are now being attacked by anti-trans/lgbt ips, like this one and this one. Would it be possible to block the edit by IPs for some time to prevent vandalism?

I'm sorry for bothering you, and would appreciate any help or any directing to the correct procedures. Simonecv (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If you believe an article requires semi-protection, you should report it at WP:RFPP. Keep in mind that, generally, persistent disruption over a certain period of time is required to justify protecting an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Rockallnight5

I don't necessarily see this as a huge deal, but I'm curions about your indef block. It is my understanding that the user is now limiting their edits to a single account. Many of their edits are productive. Their unproductive edits seem to be in good faith at this point. They are self-reverting some of their foolish edits. They seem open to change. Perhaps some discussion or explanation might be called for? Uninvited Company 15:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The history of this user clearly shows someone who is a net detriment to the project. Unlike you, I see the conduct as continuing. I can't comment on logged out edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If the block is based on information that you can't disclose publicly, would it not be appropriate to state that either in the block log message or on User talk:Rockallnight5, and possibly also in the noticeboard thread? Uninvited Company 15:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rockallnight5 is now using 172.58.87.91 to restore the unsourced recording dates [4] [5]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on obvious behavior, I blocked the IP for one week for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Analogies between two recent SPI cases

I'm not sure that writing on your page is appropriate but I'm not sure I can write on the concerned SPI case page as the case is marked as closed, but, if I can put my two cents in, I would suggest considering the analogies between Viviocon group and Lascava group:

Almost all the confirmed sockpuppets of Lascava were created in other wiki-projects (wikinews, wikisource, wikivoyage, wikiversity, wikibooks, etc.), the same as most of the accounts listed above;
All of them were focused on italian IPA trascriptions and the message left by the accounts above is about that topic also (in particular one of the edits of Mongales was exactly on that aspect (m->ɱ), see here Special:Diff/861112889;
The usernames were often some sort of a word-puzzle of the articles they edited (Isenoilgug is the reverse spelling of Guglionesi; Lascava edited LAScia o raddopia and CAVA de Tirreni; Mongales edited MONfalcone and Luigi ZinGALES etc.). Similarly, the usernames of the Viviocon group are an anagram (syllables in reverse order: fotrion -> trionfo; viviocon -> convivio; vernoin -> inverno; foniasin -> sinfonia; and so on...) of the words having the feature they are asking a modification for (again, m->ɱ).

A check-user may also prove helpful in order to confirm this relation. Horst Hof (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The two groups are

Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

139.60.226.249

139.60.226.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please consider revoking Talk page privileges for the remainder of the block. General Ization ^Talk 14:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Done --Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a sock so can't report it

Can you kindly check? Thanks. My evidence is below.

In the article Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, User:J-Man11 made this edit. It was corrected by User:Dormskirk. An hour or so later, IP:80.4.75.240 edited it here. Checking IP:80.4.75.240 contributions, he/she edits 1) articles similar to User:J-Man11 see contribution history and 2) edits it in almost the same style as User:J-Man11 does, evidence 1 evidence 2, evidence 3, that is, editing without sources or reliable sources and/or editing incorrect information (see evidence 3). User:J-Man11 has socked before under this account, User:Justyouraverageme.

Thank you very much.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (previously SLai)

Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. I'm not familiar with the editor, and I see no reason why I should engage in a behavioral analysis, especially based on the fact that the IP has made only a couple of edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok if the editor makes more similar edits, would you consider? BlueD954 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If the IP is persistent enough and you believe it is disruptive and connected to the named user, then you may file a report at WP:SPI. I express no opinion on whether you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at User talk:Chzz

Hi. I don't find your recent edits at User talk:Chzz to be appropriate at all and you seem to only be further involving yourself in a conflicted manner. Why are you doing this?

Regarding "CheckUser blocks", CheckUsers quite literally do not have the ability to block users here (I just checked Special:ListGroupRights again), only administrators do. It feels like a weird misnomer that I would discourage you from using in any discussions. Administrators make blocks here and any administrator who makes a block should be responsive to inquiries about it. The default discussion location is the affected user's talk page. It has been this way for many, many years, as I'm sure you're aware. Consequently, I'm pretty confused by your behavior here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) MZMcBride, you are correct that only administrators can issue blocks, and must explain their block rationale when challenged. The rationale in this case includes the {{checkuserblock-account}} notation, which indicates that the rationale for the block involves private checkuser evidence which cannot be discussed publicly under any circumstances. The only path to appeal in such a case is to contact the Arbitration Committee privately to investigate the situation offline. Discussing an unblock on Wikipedia (anywhere on Wikipedia) is pointless because no admin will unblock this user, unless they are looking for a reason to be immediately desysopped for cause. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It always confuses me

When sockmasters file SPIs. I was about to ping Anonymuus User at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huddohudson to see you'd CU blocked them. Not as bad as when they file reports on their own socks, though. That one I will never understand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find that socks often file SPIs. Many, like the one you handled, have merit. The Anonymuss User "case" has to be one of the more confusing investigations I've made on my own (as opposed to evidence being presented by someone else). I've spent a chunk of time this morning on it, and I'm still a bit dizzy from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it too, though it still confuses me. It seems to me it'd be the last place I'd go if I was one. Anyway, have more coffee! It aids in dizziness and SPI handling. Or so I've been told. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If you adopt my view, although socks come in different flavors, many love attention. What you would do is hardly a good barometer of what socks do - at least I hope so.

Unfortunately, I don't drink coffee (or anything with caffeine in it).

.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Here's one for you from a few minutes ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Web SourceContent. That master (Web SourceContent is a sock, not the master) has been on a roll lately, but mostly as IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's fun. This filing I think is my favourite recent one. The master reported three of his own socks under a different SPI. It's also amazing how many people he's "forced to create accounts for him, and then they get here and love Wikipedia and just want to fight vandalism." [insert eyeroll emoji]. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you like reply-link (I don't use it but am thinking about it)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't tried it, and this may be a really dumb reason, but I find the edit summary it leaves annoying, and I'm not smart enough to figure out how to configure it not to leave one nor do I want to change it every time. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Query

Can I email you right now? --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to e-mail me. Just bear in mind that I don't reply to user e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's sort of Urgent.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no urgency; nor do I see a reason for any action, let alone the action you suggested. You're welcome to e-mail me again and explain your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Re:SPI

Thank you for the notice. I consider myself to still be a little green when it comes to this sort of thing, and any help is greatly appreciated. Jebcubed (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

[6] Thought I'd come to you since last time, when I posted it on Ad Orientem's page, you took care of it. Proof: Editing genres on Mariah Carey and Meghan Trainor related articles, arranging them in alphabetical order. Also note that one of MJH's prior socks was called IPhoneKid.--N Ø 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. Bbb23 is on a short break. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it.--N Ø 08:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Another one [7]. Ad Orientem Bbb23.--N Ø 04:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Stale socks

I had a question about socks that haven't been active recently. I was reviewing the edit history of Jain University and found it infested with undisclosed paid editors. Among them was the account Sainath Nuvvula, but scrolling further down I saw blocked accounts linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sainath nuvvula. I was surprised that this account was not blocked, since it's an obvious sock and they merrily picked up where the others had been stopped. The account has been inactive since 11 January 2018... so does a stale sock still merit a block or is it pointless now? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

For an account to be blocked, someone has to report it. I might have kept track of the article for a while via my watchlist, but at some point I remove it, and this account wasn't created until about three months after the case was last actioned. No, it doesn't make sense to block him as it's been almost a year since he last edited. If you notice a resumption in editing, then he should be reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Atherton's FRSA title

I noticed you reversed an edit of the title FRSA to the end of Paul Atherton's name. There's clearly evidence he's been appointed a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts and it seems to be an accepted norm on Wikipedia to apportion the title to the name of those who have been awarded it. E.g. Alex James (musician), Rod Aldridge, Sonita Alleyne, Sara Arber, Timothy Garton Ash etc. So curious to know if there was a particular reason for the reversal/Fix? Thanks. 82.14.100.183 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. My apologies. I put it back in the article. It's supposed to have a comma, though, after the person's name (like the others). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Beta Tau Omega

Hi! May I know the specific reasons my page was deleted? You did leave a message in the talk page (I got an email about it) but then proceeded to delete that as well so I couldst really read it. It was ("Ahmedmgad65 Hi, my handle is User:Naraht and I'm an editor who specializes in greek letter organizations. Yes, Omega Phi Gamma, Rho Delta Chi and L...") And that's all I can see from the Wikipedia email. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedmgad65 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:CSD#A7, i.e., the article had no credible claims of [encyclopedic] significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

	Merry Xmas
	Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to you! As always, thanks for all your help :) 5 albert square (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks, right back at you. Don't watch too many soaps over the holidays.

--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha I'll try not to.

By the way, going to try helping out a bit more at SPI after the New Year. I might not be a CU but I can make decisions and offer input based on behavioural evidence.

-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Your help at SPI will be welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A question.

Why reverting the relisting (which is in my opinion valid) and saying not helpful. AfD is not a vote count. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that editors believe that admins who close AfDs are idiots. Many AfDs are "messy"; nonetheless, an admin can generally assess consensus. You didn't just relist the AfD - you made extensive comments. It was the comments that were not only unhelpful but unnecessary and at least partly expressed your own opinion. Why don't you vote? You're of course not required to, but it would be considerably more helpful in determining a consensus than what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I never thought for a second that admins are idiots. I only have opinions towards the canvassed bias thing (which is pretty obvious to everyone who would look at the matter) and nothing more, hence my relist. So you are saying that relists are not helpful in determining a consensus? If you want to close the AfD with what you think it should be, do it (AfDs can be closed despite relists when someone thinks the consensus is reached). But don't revert relists (relists can be done by non-admins). I will admit I put too much into a relisting comment, but I just wanted to be clear why I did it. There is no consensus here yet, which I already mentioned in my comment (the only thing that is missing here is a draftify or a merge suggestion and we would complete the circle of possiblities). For the reason why I did not vote is because I have no opinion towards the notability of the subject, which is also why I did the relist (which exists for a reason to get a clearer consensus like the script says). I am sorry for the comment, but not for the relist because I think it was the right thing to do in this case, while I suppose this could be closed as no consensus. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments with personal attacks are not okay

Hi! We haven't been introduced: I'm Levivich. When closing the SPI I filed, you wrote: I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master. This is publicly casting aspersions against me, without any justification, evidence, or other basis.

WP:PA includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

WP:ADMINCOND says: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."

WP:Casting aspersions: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

I don't know why you think I am "suspicious," although I assume it's because I recently posted evidence in an arbcom case against an admin. Regardless of your reasons, you are welcome to discuss it at my talk page.

However, casting aspersions that I am "suspicious," without evidence, in a public place, in closing an SPI investigation, which is an official admin duty, is not cool. Doing so:

Violates the above policies
Sends a message to other admin that it's OK to cast aspersions or be snarky or otherwise unprofessional in performing an admin closure
Sends a message to editors discouraging them from participating in Wikipedia
Generally adds toxicity to our editing environment, and we have too much of that already

In performing an admin closure, you should comment on the content, not on the editors. You could have just written, "Closed for insufficient evidence." (By the way, I take no issue with the actual closure, as you are in a better position to evaluate the evidence than I am.)

You can post whatever personal attacks you want against me on my talk page or yours (I have thick skin, it really wouldn't bother me), but not when you're performing an official admin duty. At that point, you must be professional and civil. As an admin, you are a model for other editors and an ambassador for Wikipedia. Please act accordingly.

Please edit the SPI page to remove the offending language from your closing commentary. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You have all the earmarks of a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you believe I am a sock, I encourage you to start an SPI and have me CU'd. At least then the results would be public. (My guess is that's already been done, and if anything were found, I'd already be blocked.) I am not a sock. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion of me. However, you are not entitled to cast aspersions about me in an admin closure comment. I am asking you a second time to please remove "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." from your SPI closing comment. If you are not going to grant my request, please state that clearly, and I would also appreciate an explanation as to why not. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of being suspicious or a sock without evidence is a personal attack, and I’m sad that you’ve said that about me and even sadder that you wouldn’t grant my request to remove your PA. So, I’ve done it myself per RPA. I don’t know what I did to make you hate me but I hope your feelings about me change in the future. Merry Christmas and happy editing. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Levivich: If you do that again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is it so important for you to say unkind things about me in an official capacity? All I am asking for is to remove a personal attack against me. It’s not really a big deal for it to be removed. Please remoce the PA from your closing comment. Otherwise you leave me no choice other than to leave the personal attack there or involve other editors. I’m not going to do the former; it seriously harms my reputation to have a high profile longtime admin calling me suspicious or a sock puppet, and doing so without evidence is an obvious PA. Is calling me suspicious so important to you that you’d escalate this to ANI or ArbCom? Is that going to be a good use of other editors’ time? Will it be healthy for the community? Please don’t be mean to me for no reason. I have literally never done anything wrong against you or anyone else here. Just remove it so we can end this dispute here and now. Please, please, please don’t draw a line in the sand over a PA. Just delete the personal attack and we can both go on our way. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Levivich, why can't you just disclose your alternate accounts rather than indulge in these posturings? ∯WBG^converse 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you've had prior experience on Wikipedia, based on the fact that your first edit was five weeks ago, showing significant proficiency with Wikipedia jargon, editing procedures and policies, up tp and including the NPA/sock business, which would be known to habitués of ANI. You were nominating things for deletion and participating in discussions four days in. There, that's grounds for suspicion, so I see no personal attack. I strongly advise you to stop digging the hole deeper, and please disclose your previous accounts. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats my whole point! I don’t have any previous accounts! And it’s ridiculous that I’m being accused of wrongdoing for what.. being “familiar” with WP?! Nonsense! This is exactly why I say it’s a personal attack, look at all the people now convinced I’m a sock puppet. This is not acceptable: I come here, I RTFM, I apparently do ‘’I-don’t-know-what’’ so well that people accuse me of being a sock puppet. Seriously WTF guys? Stop making false accusations against me. Please remove the personal attacks. I am not going to accept that as a condition of volunteering my time at WP I have to put up with baseless accusations of wrongdoing. Levivich (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed and made up my own mind based on your comments, editing history and conduct, prompted by your demands on this talkpage and at SPI. Stop making the hole deeper. Acroterion (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying that you are more suspicious than the subject of the SPI is not a personal attack. You were just given reasons why there is suspicion, so it is not baseless any more than your accusations in the SPI were baseless. You really should drop it now. ~ GB fan 20:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not in a hole nor am I digging deeper. I have a right to not be called a sock puppet without evidence. That is a personal attack, it’s even in the docs and arbcom decisions. Just search and you’ll find it. I am not going to drop it. I take my reputation seriously. Your suspicions are not evidence. Nothing wrong with participating in an AFD or anything else, the docs encourage participation. I did not accuse anyone of being an SPI; filing at SPI is not an accusation, that’s also in the docs. I am not going to allow people to accuse me of wrongdoing without evidence and not try to stop it. I will fight for civility. I will fight for AGF. I will fight to make WP a more welcoming place for newbies like me. I want to be clear: if bbb doesn’t remove tbe PA I am going to ANI, and if that doesn’t work (it won’t, I’m sure, as another admin will just close my request and probably also say I’m a suspicious sock puppet), I will go to ArbCom. If that doesn’t work I’ll probably leave. No way I am volunteering my time in a place where people can accuse me of wrongdoing just for picking things up too quickly. All of you folks on this thread are engaged in driving away a new editor ‘’’who has done nothing wrong’’’. Think about how you’re treating me. Think about whether your suspicions are really founded or not.

I’m done bothering bbb on his/her talk page. If the PA is still there Wed I’ll post to ANI. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

MariaJayHicky block evading

MariaJayHicky seems to be back again using accounts 82.132.212.12 and 82.132.224.136 to changing genres in the article Girl [8] [9]. This editor has done this before while using another account [10]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm happy behaviourally that they're MariaJaydHicky so I've blocked both IPs.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Meatsgains^(talk) 01:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sorry I can't wait, I need resolution of this issue. Levivich (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

I tagged HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Faisal Al Qassimi A7 & G5. You removed the G5 as bogus without any explanation, which I undid. Coming back a few hours later, I have a notification indicator that disappeared as soon as I looked at it, and I see the article was deleted A7 (no G5), and a talk page had been created and also deleted. Was it some message from you to me? Ta, Cabayi (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The article was not eligible for G5, and I might not have used the word "bogus" had it been someone else, but you're well-versed in sock puppetry (btw, you do a very good job at SPI). First, the user who creates the article has to be blocked. Second, it has to be shown that there is a master and that the master is also blocked. Third, the master must have been blocked before the user created the article. As I recall, at the time you tagged it none of those requirements had been satisfied. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I've rechecked and to me the sequence still looks watertight as the feathers on a duck...

Master blocked - 12:02, 11 December 2018 [11]
Article created - 16:40, 23 December 2018 [12]
Author reported - 18:23, 23 December 2018 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youareagoner
G5 tag placed - 18:24, 23 December 2018 Special:Diff/875087342

I've also tagged Rebuild Kerala, just in case you still think I've got it wrong. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right about two of the requirements (I was wrong when I said they weren't met), but you're wrong about the first. The creator hasn't been blocked. I declined the G5 on Rebuild Kerala.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I've encountered this interpretation of G5. The whole point is that the master and the sock are the same person, the master's been blocked, and the sock is the master dodging the block. But never mind, I'll re-tag once the SPI cocludes. Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation. It's the literal language. See WP:CSD#G5 ("This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users"). You have the concept right, but until the puppet is actually blocked, you don't have completion of the concept. Either a clerk or an admin, not the filer, has to make the determination that the accused account is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I meant the interpretation that the G5 tag should only be applied after the SPI has concluded.

Every CSD requires an admin to make a determination, in this case it includes whether or not Dingdongdingnow is a sock of Youareagoner. It's been my experience that admins will look at the CSD, look at the evidence at the SPI, and either act on the behavioural evidence (block & delete) or wait for the SPI to conclude. Removing the G5 is an outlier, probably due to the unusual route by which we got here.

Have a good Xmas, Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Merry Christmas

Wishing you and yours a blessed feast. Thank you for all of your help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

HardSunBadMoon....

...not yet showing as blocked, and continuing to edit. Mostly innocuous (holiday greetings), but I am concerned because this editor has had a past history of bad behavior, both in article edits and on Talk pages of other editors. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at a different user? See [13].--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that User:HardSunBadMoon has not posted anything after your note on being blocked (you posted 13:29 25 December) but there is no description on HSBM's User page of the block. Given your note, my guess is that this is awaiting Clerk to make final decision. Thank you for moving the SPI process along. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ 16:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy Holidays to you too.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

reverted edits

Dear Sir, you have deleted my edits without much explanation. Please can you explain. Thanks -DifferentialCalculus

(talk page stalker) Personally I think there is enough explanation here. That is a lot of text to add without anything to back it up. Having looked at your edits, I'm in agreement with Bbb23.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I partially agree with some of bbb23's edits on the page you mentioned but what about edits such as this one this one - [14] . Here everything is sourced. I had also added quotes from a book and 3 other sources. This is factual information as specified in the source. Thanks

Your edit was gushingly promotional: "Narayan Murlidhar Gupte (1872-1947), popularly known as "Bee", famous 19th/early 20th century Marathi poet and a scholar of Sanskrit and English. His poems, published as "Phulanchi Onzal"(bunch of flowers) are marked by a delicate sense of beauty and metaphysical subtleties - such as the marathi poem "Chapha Bolena" (flower does not speak) written by him for his ill wife." You can't add material like that to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, got it. I understand now. Thanks for explaining - I am new. Can I add it back in an encyclopedic manner - for example- "Narayan Murlidhar Gupte (1872-1947), known by pseudonym "Bee", Marathi language Poet and sanskrit/english scholar". Thanks[user:DifferentailCalculus] By the way, how did you set up wikipedia editor to add those ":" or are you adding them manually?

I'm adding the colons manually. See WP:INDENT. Also, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts to Talk pages. Yes, you can add the material in a less promotional way. I'd also leave out the pseudonym part - it's not necessary to identify who he was. Also, fix the capitalization. Poet shouldn't be capitalized, and Sanskrit and English should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So how do I create an SPI against a blocked range

You deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64, but clearly Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 and 76.238.222.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same editor. So how do I report the evasion of a range block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

File it with one of the IPs in the range who edited most recently. Then in the body add the range as a puppet along with the other IP. A range can't be a named master. The SPI is created as if 64 is the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #23650

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #23650 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

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

Time: Dec 27, 2018 00:52:20

Message: I should welcome your input, 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) 00:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I don't see why this is being handled at UTRS. TPE has access to his Talk page, and I see nothing private in the UTRS appeal. His unblock request on November 9 was denied, and he was given instructions on appealing, although I or some other CU would also have to consent. BTW, the November 9 unblock request was just barely six months after I blocked 4 more of his socks, bringing his total to a staggering number. Hard to imagine anyone saying terrific, you apologize, and you're not going to sock again - after all you don't have time to sock. Does anyone that abusive ever reform? I dunno, but it sure doesn't look appealing (if you'll pardon the pun) to me. Happy Holidays to you!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that this should be handled on talk page however, as you will see from my comments at UTRS, I am simply doing some ground clearing to assist in deciding the advice to be given to the appellant. Thanks for providing useful background. Just Chilling (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI

I think after having been editing on WP for almost 10 years you should have a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH that you did not seem to have here [15]. These were intentionally separate because to me they are unrelated. This other user I have brought twice to ANI before for their editing practice over months, and every time they have gone against their promise. They have been blocked 10 times for the exact same type of edits on the same page. If that is not a completely valid and completely unrelated reason to bring someone to ANI I do not know what is. I would think that the history of this issue and this user itself should be more than enough to show this was far from retaliatory. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisions to Bessie Stringfield's Wikipedia Page

Hello, Bbb23, I am a new editor (member) of Wikipedia so am still learning the rules, so please bear with me.

This morning I started correcting factual (and spelling) errors and adding missing citations/references to the Wikipedia page for Bessie Stringfield. I was using the visual editor since it seemed more user-friendly. I made several edits to correct and/or clarify factual information and to add citations/references, and pressed "publish," and it looked like my edits posted. Then I took a short break, came back with the intention of continuing to make factual corrections, clarify misleading sentences, and insert source citations. But suddenly I got an error message saying that there was an editing conflict because another editor was making edits to the page at the same time. I looked in the edit-history page and saw your username, so I'm writing to ask why my edits were taken out?

For instance, here is a necessary edit: It says on Bessie's page that she was Jamaican American. This is incorrect. It also says her (biological) parents were African American. This is also incorrect, even though the NY Times is cited as the source for this. I am a researcher/author/biographer myself. Bessie's biological father was of mixed heritage, African American and Native American. Her biological mother was white and I confirmed this with Esther Bennett, Bessie's niece who was also quoted in the article and in the NY Times obituary. The NY Times obituary was incorrect in reporting that Bessie's parents were African American because the reporter relied on records that are more than 100 years old, when all people of color and their families were listed simply as "negroes." Further, Bessie's biological white mother died in 1916. The census taker did not come until 1920, after Bessie's biological white mother had died. Her father James White had by then remarried an African American woman, who was Bessie's stepmother but not her mother. So, the NY Times article is incorrect about her parents' races.

These corrections (and others) all need to be inserted for the article to be both factually correct and clear, and for the full citations to be listed.

The above information --regarding the unreliability of old records and the practice of the US Census Dept to list all people of color as "negroes," and Bessie's white biological mother not being present for the census taker, can all be inserted as a footnote if that is the etiquette.

Please advise. I would so much appreciate hearing from you on the best way for me to proceed. The Help guide seemed to suggest that I could continue editing using my edits which would supplant yours, but I don't want us to be going back and forth, undoing each other's edits.

If I could hear from you, that would be great. Thank you. Trubea01 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trubea01, thanks for posting here. As you say, you don't know all the rules, and I can tell you, having been here a very long time, that Wikipedia full of rules. Briefly, the central problem with your edits is you rely on an unpublished memoir of Ann Ferrar. I read some of the "book" at her website, and it's written as if Ferrar is a groupie and Stringield is her idol. Wikipedia does not consider that website a reliable source. If you want to add or change material, you're going to have to find what are called secondary sources, e.g., prominent American newspapers, etc. You also can't rely on your own research (WP:OR) unless that research is based on reliable sources. You can't say that the New York Times is "wrong" as that's only your opinion. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions and candid feedback on how to go about making edits and revisions to the Bessie Stringfield page according to the Wikipedia rules. I will give it another go carefully.

Before I begin, I'm not clear on how to cite a reference that is used multiple times in the Wikipedia article - do I use IBID? It's a little tricky because while the same source is cited multiple times in the article, an even more complete citation would be to list the exact pages, paragraphs and lines where the material is sourced from. However, if I use IBID, I wouldn't be able to cite the pages/paragraphs so specifically, since then each citation would be slightly different. Any advice on this? Or shall I just forego citing the specific pages/paragraphs?

In addition to the NY Times obituary on Ms. Stringfield which came out in 2018, there are 3 other main sources for the Wikipedia article, each published in a reputable place, at different times, all by the same author (Stringfield's biographer Ann Ferrar). Two of these references are already cited in the article (the book "Hear Me Roar" and the AMA Hall of Fame bio of Stringfield, which is actually an excerpt from "Hear Me Roar," although the Wiki citation doesn't mention this. [fyi, if you look at the bio on the AMA-HOF site, it states at the top that the HOF article on Stringfield is from "Hear Me Roar."]

The third main source of info in the Wikipedia article is one that I would like to add because it predates all the other sources. It is an article published in the national magazine American Iron in 1993. Much of the available information on Stringfield across the board appears to have begun with the American Iron article published shortly after Stringfield's death in 1993. I have a hard copy of that article (also by Ferrar) and perhaps I can upload it, though it is of course copyrighted material.

Finally, perhaps this is a nit, but since Wikipedia editors are information-junkies, here it is:

In one or more of the references where "Hear Me Roar" is cited, the editor who did the citation listed the publisher as Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing. That is incorrect, since Crown did not have the Three Rivers Press in 1996 when "Hear Me Roar" was published. Therefore, the correct citation is NY: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1996, 1st ed. I have a hard copy of the book's copyright page, as well as the copyright registration page from the Copyright.gov database, if you would like to see those.

Also, the correct citation for the 2nd edition of that book is: NH: Whitehorse Press, 2000, 2nd ed.)

Thank you again.Trubea01 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't have time to reply to this until at the earliest tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Demoreasimpson16 Sock

I bought this SPI to your attention on December 12th with no action on your end and none by anyone else. The sockpuppet account, Demorea20, continued to vandalize/edit multiple pages which will now require cleanup. Could you please block the offending account, check for any sleepers, and revert the changes made from December 11 to present? Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08 on December 28, 2018 (UTC)

41.227.176.234

Hi, you blocked User:41.227.176.234 for socking and recreating Hamza Hamry. This behaviour has continued, please action as necessary. Thanks and happy new year. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sock Block

Her can you take a peak at Brian Evans our favorite sock is back. Had a recent rash of copyright issues on commons, then new sock accounts. In discussions we kept one image and it encouraged more meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Please take a look at Nisheshbhattarai99. They look to be a vandalism only account and a sock too. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A sock of whom?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Of Poojjan ccresta. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That case is

Stale. You can file a report there, though, based on behavior if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

AdidasZRO

AdidasZRO has made exactly two edits. Both of them are giving out barnstars. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed. I couldn't find any evidence of socking without someone to compare them to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I have them on my radar for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

AN Thread

An AN thread has been started regarding you. You may find it here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:51 on December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Sri Sri Centre for Media Studies

A small private establishment located in a small house in Bangalore [16], without online presence and with zero reliable third-party Google hits other than in directories. The only official online presence is a single webpage at https://www.artofliving.org/in-en/sri-sri-centre-media-studies, last updated in 2013 (see date on image). No, there is nothing that would point even to WP:SIGNIFICANCE, not mentioning notability where private establishments have to cross WP:CORP. You were likely confused by the word "college" which in many countries implies an official recognition; but not in India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If it isn't a college, then tag it as a hoax, but it sounds much more like this should be taken to AfD (you could also try prodding it). If an article says an entity is a college, I accept that on face value unless it's obvious to me otherwise. It doesn't help that this article was created years ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate the PROD process, so have now AfD'd the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I support the deletion. User:Kashmiri Please PROD it first and lets save the community time at AfD. No harm in delaying the AfD by a week. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

G5

Hi there. Hope you had a good holiday. Can you please elaborate on why this is ineligible for G5? They’re a sock of a globally locked and locally blocked sock master. Praxidicae (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I went too fast. I saw immediately the creator wasn't locally blocked (I have a script that shows me that automatically) and didn't realize they were globally locked. I've deleted it. Thanks for the nudge.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Spotting this prompted me to pile on at this request - MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Globally locked and blocked users. If MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js can mark LOCKED users in popups then there's no reason MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js can't mark them too.

Praxidicae your un-named G5 author would be a useful LOCKED but not BLOCKED test-case for that request. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I use the same script (I think?) and it gets me sometimes too. I actually kind of assumed that was the case on the decline which is why I asked. :) And thanks Cabayi! I actually use this script xwiki when doing my GS patrols and it would be super handy for when I wind up blocking spambots that are already glocked. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI: unexplained reversion

Hi, you didn't leave an explanation in your edit summary on this revert. Please could you help me understand your rationale? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I closed the report. You can't just reopen it. If you have something new that is relevant, you can add it but without reopening it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

You can't just reopen it. This comes as something of a surprise to me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case explicitly states that a user can re-open a case. Please could you point me to a policy or guideline (or equivalent) that corroborates your claim?

If you have something new that is relevant, you can add it but without reopening it. I don't understand the rationale for this statement. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case, closed reports don't receive scrutiny or CheckUser attention. The whole point of my edits ([17], [18]) was to provide additional evidence and to reopen the case to obtain CheckUser review for the suspected sock. Is the documentation out of date? Do closed reports now receive administrator review and CU attention? Zazpot (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The reopening the guide is talking about is when you create a new report about new users, not when you unclose a report that was just closed. I already ran a check on the two users and reported my findings, but even if I hadn't and had closed it for other reasons, you can't reopen the same report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The reopening the guide is talking about is when you create a new report about new users... I'm not trying to be difficult, but that does not make sense to me. How does opening a new report about new users constitute reopening?

even if I hadn't and had closed it for other reasons, you can't reopen the same report. Again, please could you point me to a policy or guideline that corroborates this claim?

I already ran a check on the two users and reported my findings... A checkuser check? If so, thank you for doing that. (It was not clear to me that you had done so, because you seemed to have skipped straight from step 1 to step 6 of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case; but I guess you actually skipped from step 1 to steps 3 and 6 simultaneously, without stopping at steps 2 or 4-5. I had not expected that to happen.) I must say I am surprised that LibertyLegend did not show up as a sock; oh well. Zazpot (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You may not be trying to be difficult, but you are doing so anyway. Last comment. When you open a new case (the first report), it's called opening. After the report is disposed of, usually closed and archived but closed is sufficient, filing a new report is called reopening. Whether the jargon makes sense to you doesn't matter; that's just the way it is. And stop asking me to point to some magical policy that has language you think applies; it's very annoying.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Osourdounmou

Thanks for that. When I created the report, I saw there was another open... wasn't sure it was okay for me to simply delete it. Never happened to me before. In the future, if it happens, it's alright for me to delete it? Or should I leave it alone? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Bbb23: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

At least 8 characters in length
Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bambifan101?

Good day! I'm an admin on the Uzbek Wikipedia. After several strange, obsessive comments on my talk page by 104.58.147.208, I decided to do a little bit of digging and came across this where you seem to have made a few edits. While the edits and comments of this individual on uzwiki have generally been harmless, his/her obsession with juvenile-themed movies and books certainly raised a red flag. Just wanted to ask you if we should start an investigation. It seems this individual has made some edits on enwiki as well. Nataev ^talk 12:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nataev: By all means file a report at SPI. In addition to other evidence, please highlight the block log at the SPI. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sockpuppet allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice (added party)

At the request of the arbitrators, you have been added as a named party to the GiantSnowman case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't ping you

Do you mean in that discussion, or ever again?--v/r - T P 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in the case request, of course. Otherwise, feel free to ping me whenever you like.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Whew, I was trying to go through all of my memories of what I might've done to you.--v/r - T P 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mistake?

Was this a mistake? I had an agreement with an arbitrator from many years ago that this was an okay thing to have courtesy blanked. jps (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Which arbitrator?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I would have to check in my e-mail archives of an account I do not normally use anymore to remember exactly which arbcomm member it was (likely they are no longer on the board) who I talked to about this. Just for clarification, is it really that important to you? To be clear, there are privacy issues off-wiki that I've been dealing with for the better part of a decade that this was in part meant to address and I don't understand what your particular motivation is in reverting the courtesy blanking. jps (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

First, blanking doesn't do much good because the history is still there for anyone to look at. Second, it doesn't matter to me whether the person is still on the Committee; please figure out who it was and let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. This was so long ago, could we instead ask for an outside opinion on, say, WP:AN as to what we should do? I would rather not go through the annoyance of revisiting archives from six years ago, nor do I feel comfortable with your vaguely combative approach right now, if that's okay. jps (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I have no intention of undoing the blanking again. Bringing it to AN would only draw more attention to what I assume you'd prefer to keep quiet. Also, if there's something private you wish to tell me, you can always e-mail me. I won't reply to the e-mail, but I'll certainly read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ineligible CSD?

Hi, I'm struggling a bit to understand this revert. It was created by a sock and there have been no substantive edits, merely a bit of gnoming, since its creation. I did leave a note for any CSD reviewing admin on the talk page and will happily take it to AfD but I still don't see what the issue may be. Is it that the chap clearly exists and there are sources? If so, we may as well deprecate G5 because most stuff meets that bar even if it might fail some other CSD criteria. Just confused, not intending to argue. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: To be eligible for G5, the blocked sock has to have created the article after the master was blocked. In this case, Rbnjat created the article on October 29, 2018, whereas the master was not blocked for socking until December 16, 2018. The master was blocked on October 29 but not for socking but for violating his topic ban. Do you believe the creation of the article was a violation of the same ban? If so, I'll delete it per G5. Sorry it's so complicated.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) G5 does not apply retrospectively and the master was not already blocked, during Rbnjat's writing the article. If this article did violate the original TBan; (which Rbnjat was evading); it could have been G5ed but again, this article is fairly outside the scope of TBan. ∯WBG^converse 19:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'm thick, sorry. I should have known that. I will take another look because I don't actually know the scope of the topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm......I see that a reference in the article mentions that the party of the candidate has supposedly created a sympathy wave amongst traditional Jat voters. In light of the Topic-Ban from anything to do with Jats (coupled with the fact that the subject fails NPOL at any case); this can be G5-ed:-) ∯WBG^converse 19:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, WBG. I feel a bit bad about that because I'm not a fan of wikilawyering but I think you're right that it would "work" as a means to delete the article. It's all a bit Machiavellian! As an aside, I never realised that "banned" in G5 meant "topic banned" - for some reason, I'd always thought it meant site banned, although that would probably mean they would have to sock anyway and so the woring would be tautologous. I learn every day! - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you folk did the hard part. I've done the easy part and deleted the page per your analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. A bit of a saga. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it is worth, I am not obsessing here. Jannayak Janta Party was created on 11 December, before the sock block, and was pretty useless. But I've made something out of it even though I despair at the number of ephemeral political parties that start, sputter and go in India and for which little can often be said other than the initial launch hype. And, of course, I made something out of it despite rather stupidly misunderstanding when the "sock" definition kicks in even though I knew it was a creation by an account that ultimately was a sock. The article has nothing to do with Jats, so it wouldn't be a topic ban breach anyway. but it does at least suggest that I am not vindictive: even creations etc by people who are not complying with our policies may sometimes be worthy. I should make a note for the next time I am taken to ANI or ArbCom or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Recreating Telem article

Hi,

I'd like to recreate the Telem (Israeli political party) article. I know you deleted an earlier version as it was created by a blocked user. Is there anything I should do besides notifying you? Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to create it from scratch, or would you like me to restore it for you to work on?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like it to be restored. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Done --Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Howdy. Yet another IP (User:178.164.102.131) has requested an 'Elizabeth II is dead' edit. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked with the palace. She's fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Just letting you know that I mentioned your block of 66.87.9.102 and page protection of Political objections to the Baha'i Faith at ANI; no further action needed on your part. Thanks for doing that! Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Yunshui.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AlfonsoTheEditor

There is an editor might be using multiple accounts to restore edits. For example, the editor add these unnecessary tables in the articles The College Dropout and Late Registration [19] [20], I have removed them because I find them unnecessary in these articles but the editor seems to have restore them using another account [21] [22]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You can open an SPI and someone will eventually look at it, but there's not much I can do when it consists of only one registered account and IPs. As a CheckUser, I have certain policy-imposed limitations.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have started an investigation. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Bbb23, Could I ask do you deal with SPIs privately ?,
I only ask as the SPI would involve 2 IPs and an account - The first IP reveal was an accident on their part but the other is evading scrutiny so I don't know where this should be done publicly or privately,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh no no I didn't want to know the results but I wasn't sure if it could be considered outing if I were to do an SPI,

Would it be best if I just filed an SPI anyway ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not outing, but if you wish, you can provide me with the diffs so I can see if they should be rev/del'd or suppressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is the logged-out IP of this editor,

I've come across 202.58.170.123, 120.188.65.92 and 2001:8003:2666:F600:64AF:ECB4:B885:EE1 who are all similar but long story short other than edit summaries being similar and the 2001 IPs being close to each other I don't really have any evidence (hence why I'm hesitant with SPI),

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the 202 and 120 IPs are theres but I'm convinced the other is so I'll file an SPI, Sorry to bother you, Thanks for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

M-y_R-o-y-a-l_Y-o-u-n-g

I think I have found an IP that could belong to a LTA, M-y_R-o-y-a-l_Y-o-u-n-g, and I would like to open a SPI case to ask checkusers to investigate him. However, if I am not mistaken, CU Policy does not allow to link IPs to accounts, so the request would be declined. I am asking you, a sysop and checkuser, if you could tell me whether it is as I have said or it is possible to make an exception to this rule. Thanks. (Why does an automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive just because I wrote the full name of a blocked abuser? Please report or fix this error!) 37.9.169.5 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If the IP is currently editing, you can file a report. Just do not request a CU. Follow the procedures at WP:SPI for IPs filing new reports. As for the edit filter issue, you need to go to WP:EF/FP/R.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocks of User:Ng.yisheng, User:Zeekyang, others?

Ng.yisheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Zeekyang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Would you mind taking a look at the unblock requests for these two? They'd apparently organized a small Wikithon, and it seems like they've made at least some effort to be transparent about their WP:COI in the topics they were editing. Maybe there's more to it than I'm seeing. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Sigh. Take a look at the conversation between User talk:Vlorz and me (which occurred before I read the lengthy unblock requests of the two users you noted above). These sorts of things happen with far too much frequency because Wikipedia's procedures are not followed, and seasoned editors have no way of knowing that the multi-user collaboration is due to a wikithon or a school project as opposed to socking. Putting aside these quibbles for a moment, according to to Ng.yisheng, there are ten participants. He names nine but apparently forgets the 10th. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ng.yisheng. That shows 13 socks of the master, or 14 accounts in total. Should we unblock the nine mentioned by Ng.yisheng? Should we only unblock those of the nine who have requested unblocks? I'm not inclined to unblock users/accounts who have not requested an unblock, but am certainly disinclined to unblock those who aren't part of the group of 10. I would have been much happier if this had been organized by an experienced editor. None of this group is what I would call experienced enough to pull this off. And then there's the matter of the pages created by the users and whether they're sufficiently notable. In any event, I'm open to suggestions. BTW, what these folk say is at least technically plausible.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It caught my attention because it was one of the rare unblock requests that seemed pretty reasonable (and friendly) at face value, but I figured there was more to the story. One one hand, I'm fervently opposed to coordinated self-promotion, but on the other hand, I'm aware that there is a Western bias on Wikipedia in terms of coverage, and I don't know enough about Singapore literature to judge the merits of the notability claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of these folks are claiming to be part of a Wikithon. Seems doubtful, but I don't know how to proceed w/ declining their unblocks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I've moved your post to keep it together with Jamie's and my conversation. After you've read my notes here and elsewhere, I'd like to know what you think. Also, please sign your post above (otherwise it won't archive properly). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If these edits were promotional, I'd say leave them blocked. If not, then there is the possibility of sincerity. I did not know that people were organizing Wikithons w/o telling Wikipedia. However, this would be a great way to circumvent our anti sock farm procedures. Perhaps if they can make constructive edits through AfC it would work out. We need more eyes.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My tentative inclination is to unblock any users/accounts who request it and leave the others alone. There's still a discrepancy between what Ng.yisheng says about the number of users (he named 9 but said there were 10 but couldn't remember the 10th) and the number of users/accounts I blocked (14). Pending any unblocks, I agree that more eyes would be useful, but whose? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of them have posted unblock requests: Eyeyannuh, JayDubYewHo, Ng.yisheng, and Zeekyang. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks. I don't suppose you'd like to offer an opinion about the disposition of these users? I'm still looking for "more eyes".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I appreciated the transparency in the unblock requests, and I believe they are editing in good faith. They do need some familiarity with best practices, such as using edit summaries, and they may need more familiarity with notability guidelines. However, I've looked at a couple of drafts they moved to main space and they look fairly well done, though, so I think this group could be good contributors here. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've unblocked all the users who have made unblock requests + one other, Vlorz (talk · contribs · count), who implicitly requested an unblock. I have also removed the sock tags from all the users' userpages. If someone else requests an unblock, I hope they ping me. I don't keep every sock I block on my watchlist. Thanks for everyone's help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, appreciate you all taking the time and work. We're asking our other wikithon participants to request unblocks. We also note how we fell short of best practices. We hope to continue to build up Wikipedia articles on Singapore Literature; if any editors could point us to Singapore-based ones so we can get in contact, that would be great. Cheers! JayDubYewHo (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LQ

RE: this. Per MOS:LQ, the quotation is not presented as a complete sentence, but as a dependent clause introduced with that; this makes the period belong to the containing sentence, rather than the quotation. As the quoted sentence is a complete sentence in the source, the sentence could be recast so that the source sentence is presented as complete, à la:

A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

But as currently presented, the text violates the logic of MOS:LQ. I leave it to you to choose which path to fix it, but it can't be left as it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: You're an MOS expert, aren't you? I reread the guideline once and decided that CT was wrong. Then I foolishly read it again and decided that CT was probably right. Not to be outdone by myself, I read it a third time and couldn't decide. So? Take me out of my self-imposed misery; you can even use an image to lighten/heighten the blow. I'm betting against myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if this was FAC CT would be right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bbb, I appreciate your compliment in calling on me, and it pains me deeply to disappoint you, but the fact is I can never quite wrap my mind around LQ. It starts with "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." So far so good, but it's all downhill from there. By the time we're at "If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit the full stop", I'm all mixed up. Heads of state and captains of industry seek my counsel on matters big and small, but when it comes to LQ I tell them they're on their own. If an LQ issue arises in article editing I close my eyes and make my best guess.
I hope this failure won't prevent you from calling on me again. E Eng 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: Even in "failure" you don't disappoint. As long as you're not annoyed with me (join the queue), it's a pleasure to read your comments. That said, you're not going to get off quite that easily. In this instance, what's your "best guess?" or your "best guess"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
My Magic 8-Ball says Ask again later. E Eng 02:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with CT - though this should stave of all disputes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Party pooper.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor600

If this isn't a sock I will donate my next month's admin salary to the Salvation Army. But I have no clue who they are. Any ideas? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No idea, and there's no technical evidence of socking. I prefer you use a different charity.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

YGM

{{YGM}}!

I know you pinged me on SPI: Forgot it till now. Will take a look now. — regards, Revi 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI clerk

Hi. There are a few long-standing requests to become an SPI clerk here. You answered the latest request so I thought you should be aware. IWI (chat) 17:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I comment there only if I have something to say, which is rare. AFAIK, I did not respond to the "latest request".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Stale...

Huh. Thought the pixie dust trails were longer than that. However: four new ones popped up today, I added them at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawmander Guy (Help!) 22:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, boss. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The specific link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_for_Thepoliticsexpert. Yamla (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

Mind if I ask you something? What has this got to do with anything? I am the only person to edit from this account and I have a reason not to wish to start my own account (it could compromise my father's rectitude as he has an account - we could eventually resolve the issue but it would involve process and some off-Wiki interface). The point is that if a longer block was needed, any admin could have done so. I am not going near the one article that I edited until all is resolved at AN/I, but likewise I fear touching any article as we speak because I have valid reason to suspect that my contributions will be reverted on some invented principle (e.g. sockpuppetry / vandalism) and when I challenge it, it will be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just look at every contribution I have made since the lifting of my second block. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oduduwa

Pls can you tell me why you had to revert my edits when actually they contain the most accurate account of Oduduwa? Any elementary West African history book can tell you that what I put there is correct and i have provided a verifiable citation. Ppdallo (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hellishscrubber

Hi, Hellishscrubber is back with a new sockpuppet account making same edit at NYU.

Thank you so much and best regards,216.165.95.144 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jon2021

You blocked Jon2021 a few days ago - could you remove talk page access, too, please? The fact that he uses his talk page for hoax biographies and other disruption is maybe not going to break Wikipedia, but he clearly has no intention of requesting an unblock. --bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark P. Lagon

I nominated Mark P. Lagon for speedy deletion on A7 and G11 grounds, and you declined the nomination. I agree that he is probably notable but the article remains promotional with much peacocky reference to grandiose organisations that do not have Wikipedia articles. The creator has admitted being a former intern and therefore has a CoI, please see this discussion on the CoI notioceboard. I propose draftifying the article to allow the creator to produce an unpromotional version, but will not do so if you object. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think it's as promotional as you do, but at the same time I think it would be good for it to go through the AfC process. I'm also reluctant to approve draftifying it as the COI policy has not changed from "should" to "must" yet. I'm going to ask the opinion of two other admins who both have significant experience in CSD (not quite the same but related): @DGG and SoWhy: BTW, Cwmhiraeth, that's an awfully pretty picture you have on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(pinged) I would cousel against draftifying. There is no policy reason to do so and WP:IMPERFECT explicitly allows such content to exist if the subject is notable. Only if it remains in mainspace can other interested editors find and improve it. Instead, remove the spammy bits as far as needed which might also include WP:STUBIFYing. That way, nothing of importance is lost while the spammy text no longer persists. Regards So Why 15:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing the article to remove the promotional content should not require stubifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It never was A7, and probably was not promotional enough for G11. There is a choice of two good ways to proceed--either remove the puffery now, or move it to draft and remove the puffery later. What would not be a good idea is to leave it in mainspace in this promotional condition. In principle, the ed who wrote it should do the fixing, but it may be easier for one of us to do it than to explain just why is promotional . DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I will do some work on the article andt will not draftify it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI!

Hey!!

If you have a spare ~~hour~~ week or two could you please take a look at this? Not only are the edits similar (disruptively editing) all accounts suddenly issued unblock requests through UTRS today. Just wanting to check there are no sleepers.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I could pretty much have predicted the result before I started. I'm curious to know the IP at UTRS. Could you e-mail it to me, please? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have this information unfortunately, I'll ping in Just Chilling, they're tool admin on UTRS so I don't know if they can get it.-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't get missed, I'll also ping in Ponyo as they're also tool admin. Hopefully they can get it. I can only see the number of requests that the IP made not the actual IP itself. Ponyo, one of the UTRS ticket numbers is 23760.-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I am travelling but will email the IP addresses to you both late tonight. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I emailed it to Bbb23 just now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bbb23. I have quostion to you (since you are checkuser). Could you tell name of contry this user: Ios2019. I only ask because of he made one edition which has been later delted by Iran Ip (This user has made one voting at vital article project). It seems be strange due to fact this IP delted this edition later nd this user made only one edition. Yours sinceely. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, policy prohibits me from doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Need some repairs and maintenance

Hi, Bbb23 - your decline of Pradeep Chandran was followed by my AfD, but a problem was encountered and the new AfD is written on the old AfD. I suppose the closer didn't do something that was supposed to be done during the former close. Will you please take a look at it? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

After you nominated it, CAPTAIN RAJU changed the template. The AfD itself doesn't look quite right in the sense that there would normally be a pointer to the first AfD, and there isn't. Perhaps CAPTAIN RAJU can explain. I don't know how all those things interact.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I knew something didn't smell quite right - couldn't put my finger on it but here it is. Any suggestions as to what I should have/could have done differently from the beginning to make it easier for all of us? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't follow what Kudpung did, so I have nothing to suggest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I spent well over an hour looking into that and the AfD was the least of my concerns. What I did is documented on my talk page, but if I missed something crucial and erred, I'd be happy to revert or restore any action I made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

On your Talk page it looks like you deleted the article per g5, but when I looked at your log, I thought you deleted it per g4. Hence, my confusion, but maybe I didn't look at it carefully enough. I can be lazy, and I'm more tired at the end of the day (my day). Bottom line: I didn't care all that much because one way or another I figured the article would be deleted, so I certainly wasn't looking for a reason to question your actions.

--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies - I didn't intend to create an issue or time sink. I originally tagged it A7 (it was previously deleted as non-notable and nothing had changed for the better as far as material, cited RS or N) so I thought an A7 was the safest, least time consuming route but the A7 was declined. I came back here after I read what Kudz did, but since he was going to bed, I didn't want to disturb him further. I'm just looking for ways to improve my tag choices to save us all a bit of time dealing with rather obvious delete candidates (Damn, well over an hour Kudz? Was the info you found available to non-admins to track down?) ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to change Block settings of User:Dr Samkiv Kumar

You recently blocked Dr Samkiv Kumar for socking abuse but you left his talk page in good faith. But now he misuse it for made personal allegations like illiterate. So now I request you to ban him from editing talk page too. I also ready to report user if you suggest.-- Prongs³¹ 09:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It was recreated, but what makes you think it has anything to do with Dr Samkiv Kumar?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever I'm afraid; but I thought a level 2 heading would attract attention? ——SerialNumber54129 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Next time - and your heads ups are appreciated - please start a new section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock Investigation Review

Hi Bbb23, I know you are busy, but could you take a look at a Sock investigation involving me? [23]

I think the finding of sock was a bit hasty given that the evidence was solely duck based (and the language isn't even that similar) and the argument was being used by at least two other users as well. The report was also by a user who disagreed with the positions being offered (and is taking the same position in a follow on merge discussion), so I (perhaps being defensive here) suspect retaliation.

Normally, I wouldn't care because the ban has expired. But once an association of "Sockmaster" has been established on a case that taint is hard to remove. I honestly have no connection to the MarkAGuinn account and would have like the opportunity to remove that association from my record if possible.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to bother you. Squatch347 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Squatch347 Bbb23 did not block you. I can see that on your user talk page you were told to ask the blocking admin. In your case that is TheSandDoctor. You should go to their talk page for this.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I believe the user went to TSD's Talk page first; TSD hasn't yet responded. After that, the user started making the rounds. I might have been #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Number 2 actually 😉. Again, sorry if I've acted inappropriately, I didn't mean to cause a problem. I was probably just a bit butthurt about the accusation and looking for help. Squatch347 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah my fault I didn't see that, I think I need new glasses

. Bbb23 it may also have been because you commented right underneath about an SPI

. Squatch347 hopefully giving them a prod above will encourage them to look at their talk page for any missed messages

.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and 5 albert square: I saw that comment when I got up this morning, but did not have the time to adequately respond and this whole discussion took place while I was at work. I have now responded on my talk page, sorry for the delay. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's Sunday; why are you at work when you can be here relaxing and having fun?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, especially when you can hang out at SPI or Bbb23's talk page! I'm thankful my work isn't open on Sundays. Although going by our Facebook page, some customers think we shouldn't even get Sunday off!-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the business, which I would rather not get into, is 24/7. Frankly, I wish we weren't that way haha. It also didn't help that I was stuck with a morning shift whereas I usually do evening work.

(cc 5 albert square) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

hi

hi. Gharaibeh (talk · contribs) is a major contributor to the article of his tribe Gharaibeh! and this is not notable tribe in jordan as well as in Arabic Wikipedia. can you please take another look on it as it with no enough resources to prove notablity and many controversial information. regards--مصعب (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you'll have to use another deletion process.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ok. understood. please ping me in the future to notice your reply. regards--مصعب (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand

Why can't I get some help on that issue I put on ANI. Govvy (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, you don't understand that I asked you put a discussion about an article on the talkpage of the article? Please don't try and forum shop. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WTF is forum shop? Govvy (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:FORUMSHOP. General Ization ^Talk 00:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: The discussion, like most content disputes, belongs on the article Talk page and certainly not at an administrator noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock Investigation Kansascitt1225

Hey thanks for closing the investigation. According to User:Berean Hunter this case should be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midwestman1986. It's a little disheartening that the reason given for closure was that the IP edits were too old. They were fresh when the report was made, and the case was unattended until eventually another one was opened. Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Please stop erasing my question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. As I've tried to explain, it's a policy question about how we deal with relationship information for BLP, so it's in the right place. It's not for you to arbitrarily decide whether it's suitable or not for that page. At the very least, you should have discussed it with me and tried to explain why you feel it's inappropriate for me to be posting it there. You have no justification under WP:TPO to be wholesale deleting what I've written. Also, going to WP:BLPN would be an unnecessary escalation at this point: I'm seeking the advice of editors with BLP experience in the hopes that this will convince the editor in question that their interpretation of the situation is flawed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Application of policy is not discussed at policy talk pages. I don't see how it would be an "unnecessary escalation" to take it to BLPN. At the top of the BLP Talk page it says "To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if you don't want to escalate it, why haven't you gone to the Talk page, which should be the first step in a content dispute anyway. We're talking about an edit to a BLP, not about an actual violation of BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wwe2011

Thanks for stopping the disruption, they seem awfully familiar to me but I can't place the master. I did however come across this account which shares the same level of incompetency and need to know the "end date" of their block but I can't find much subject overlap (other than general wrestling) aside from that but figured you may want to look into it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The wrestling arena (hehe) is fraught with socks. The user I just blocked is not related to TheUltamateBoss3900 farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:King Monada

Hi Bbb23.

Can you explain the deletion logged, copied below? Is this a page I pinged you to? Can you please explain why G6 would apply? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

11:57, 18 January 2019 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:King Monada (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: not a reason for MfD)

This was the page you pinged me to, yes. The basis for the MfD was completely invalid. I believed the MfD should be shut down. Best would have been for me to do a snow delete, but I was lazy and did the g6 with an explanation in the delete log.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t make sense for deleting the mfd page. Would you please undelete the history and history-split the undeleted history from the re-created mfd page with its new nomination? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but I'm not going to do that. First, I think the delete was okay, and, second, I'm not good at doing what you suggest technically. All that said, I have no objection if another administrator is willing to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"New section" :)

YGM, NNR. ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC) X2, sorry. ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the technical evidence is insufficient, and I'm reluctant to block based purely on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Them's the breaks; thanks anyway. ——SerialNumber54129 15:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. You were right to bring it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I'm sorry you'd "rather not" be challenged, but I feel you're attempting to exceed your authority over at SPI. Where are you getting the notion that patrolling admins can't make uncontentious clerk requests? I have previously been told by a clerk to make a clerk request in this exact situation. At WP:SPI/C#Admin patrollers, one of the roles of admins is to "Draw Clerk or Checkuser attention to incipient problems." Why, exactly, would we be prohibited from making clerk requests, in a situation where we need a clerk? Where does it say patrolling admins can not manage SPI cases? All the SPI guidance and instruction pages I see appear to say the opposite. Granted, clerks and CUs have specialized roles that admins can't fulfill, but according to WP:SPI/AI, "Decisions and case control at SPI are routinely managed by "any admin". While Checkusers add evidence, and Checkusers and Clerks may take action, any admin can make decisions on cases and their management ... within the norms of SPI." These SPI norms are meticulously and repeatedly spelled out on various SPI subpages. I don't think what you are saying is the position of the community. However, if I'm wrong, simply explain to me how, and I will honestly apologize for giving you a hard time. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 03:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not intentionally ignoring you. I just haven't figured out how to word my response. I have also reached out to another CheckUser for their opinion, and that CU is not available at present, which means I can't tell you when I'll respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm not going to respond to your interpretations of what the SPI pages say, too time-consuming. As I see it, the central problem here is you have almost no experience as a patrolling administrator at ANI. Therefore, you have not been able to see what the "norms" are for patrolling admins. BTW, we have many patrolling admins, and they are generally helpful, cooperative, and easy to deal with. TheSandDoctor just recently started patrolling SPI. Since that time, I've been trying to help him, mostly on his Talk page. Based on our dialogs, I don't think he feels "discouraged" by my feedback; indeed, I believe it's fair to say he appreciates it. I'm happy if an admin wants to start patrolling SPI, but it can be a learning curve, and feedback from experienced users is generally welcome.

As for the specific report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghavindeonarain, where my comments bothered you, I made findings and requested a behavioral analysis. I expected a clerk to eventually do that analysis and decide the disposition, but I don't explicitly request a clerk - I usually do that only if I'm requesting a move or a merge, something wholly ministerial. It would have been fine for TSD to do the behavioral analysis himself and recommend a disposition. Instead, as I understood his request, he wanted a clerk to move the case to the oldest account, which would be putting the cart before the horse. He was right not to move the case himself; moves should not be done by patrolling admins. Patrolling admins rarely use the clerk request template or change the status to "clerk", a status that hasn't been around very long. Most commonly, a patrolling admin communicates with clerks on cases where a clerk has already commented at the report, and the patrolling admin pings that clerk to ask the clerk something or to respond to the clerk's comments.

I hope this helps you understand my thinking and explains some of the way SPI works in practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate your explanation. I understand that there is a learning curve and feedback will be necessary. Your comment came across to me as being excessively bitey over a minor, good faith attempt to contribute positively—simply requesting a clerk. Your additional explanation, that the issue was the attempt to make moves on a case that has a CU involved who has kicked the case to the clerks for further investigation, without consulting anybody, is more reasonable. You are likely correct, if I was experienced at SPI, I may have recognized this at face value. I appreciate you providing me a reasonable, patient, and nuanced explanation. However, I am just a casual observer, and if your original comments came across to a casual observer as an aggressive scolding, rather than an attempt to teach, then I wouldn't be so confident that the target of your comments in no way perceives the same attitude. Your 'compliments' and 'encouragement' may come across as backhanded when accompanied with an exasperated tone, even if you do not intend them to. I respect the work you do, and your reply here reassures me that there is a reasonable person behind all that work. I would just leave you with a friendly suggestion that the spirit of WP:BITE should extend to newcomers to any area, including administrative areas, and that while rookie mistakes in areas that have a learning curve can be exasperating to experienced insiders, we should strive to watch our tone when correcting them and try be gentle and patient at all times. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning to me against improper rollback - thank you

Thank you for the warning to me here against improper rolling-back. It was not a thought out action but impulsive. I should not have done it and shall really be more careful in future to not repeat the same. Since the original thread had closed, I considered this talk page as a substitute place where I could make amends. AshLin (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. Your acknowledgment does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible MariaJaydHicky sock?

Contribs, Account signed up 8 days ago, all edits are to genres, although its named after an unreleased Ariana Grande song, I'm getting MJH dupe vibes from it.--N Ø 08:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's another those too. 2402:1980:254:4D70:591A:E1D3:45A6:74BE (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think that this account, registered exactly 24 hours after Pinkchampayne got blocked and made its first and only edit to an obscure page PC had just been reverted on, is another one. Sorry for bothering.--N Ø 19:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Another one. I really think we should look into a long term solution or at least add MJH to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.--N Ø 16:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How do you think an LTA page would assist other editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We could specify that they're a genre warrior who also changes singers' professions to rappers on some pages. There are also some topics which the dupe accounts frequent, like French Kisses, Mariah Carey album articles and changing genres on R&B/Soul/Hip hop album articles.--N Ø 18:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, editors, like you, either know about MJH or they don't. The only editors we might assist would be the uneducated, and I don't see them looking at an LTA page in the first instance. LTA pages usually help administrators who are unfamiliar with a master and who see a new report filed at SPI. Yet, most MJH socks are identified by other means than filing reports at SPI. Indeed, many of the best MJH spotters are IPs at my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Is it actually a violation of the privacy policy to confirm that a user and an IP are the same person when the IP claims they are? The nearest thing I can find is in the checkuser policy: it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project (emphasis mine). Since the IP claims to be the user, haven't they already revealed this information themselves? I'm not having a go (and the information has since been confirmed in other ways anyway), I'm just trying to get my head around this. GoldenRing (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

When logged in, they haven't confirmed it is their IP at Wikipedia. The IP has, which is not the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Everything Black

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Everything Black. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What's

the chances of Skinspenal being a sock? I (and Sitush et al) was having a dispute with IndianHistoryEnthusiast over his pointy draftifications and I nominated one of his creations for deletion; where RTV was dwelled upon. Bish blocked IHE for a span of 48 hrs. and suddenly we have this account cropping out of nowhere with an ability to parse the abbreviation of RSN and all that. Not strong enough to lodge a SPI but seems fishy enough to me. Proceed at your discretion, please :-) ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, leaving Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:474:ED80:D9FB:7AD4:C9F7:5; (despite the prohibition against IP-user linking); in-case it helps with your background stuff:-) ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of company Wikipedia entry

Hello,

Last week we made some changes to the Wikipedia page about our company and when we checked to see if they were accepted, the whole page was deleted. What do we need to do to get this page reinstated and update its contents?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_ATV/MC

Rocky Mountain ATVMC--66.219.237.4 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Upanishads

Can you take a look at Upanishads? Looks like there's a sock-party going on there. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the tags on the userpages, you should be able to figure out what I did. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Q

I wonder if you or any of your colleagues might recognize this editor. And how about this one? They like each other. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"They like each other" - sarcasm? Nothing rings a bell for either. If you like, though, I can look at it more closely tomorrow. I'm pretty much worn out for today.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes please. Same here: gonna make some coffee and watch Chopped with the boy. Alaska King Crab! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry, not a clue.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)