Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondskie99

Hey! I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondskie99, presumably because the user was already indef blocked as NOTHERE. Could you still check the user, because if it is a sock, we will have to delete their articles under G5. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked this user due to AIV report, but just noticed this SPI. I'm familiar with Raymondskie99 and I do believe @MrClog's behaviorial evidence matches. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ferret: You're free to reblock the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done I'm reviewing contribs as well to see if any further cleanup is necessary. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Question relating to UAA report

Hi Bbb23, I made a report to UAA after seeing the username in the history of WP:FRAM. The report was quickly archived by a bot as you had already blocked the user – thanks for that (and sorry I didn't notice before making the report)... but I was also asking about 5ロ.196.13口.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who that log shows created the new account and posted the welcome on it's talk page. Would another block and / or a revdel at WP:FRAM (to remove the username) be appropriate? I wasn't sure, so thought I'd ask. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much subsequent activity now to hide the offensive username. I guess I should have done it at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI/PAID editing involving IPs

Hi Bbb23. I wondering if you might take a look at WP:COIN#Possible WP:UPE at Arjun (singer). Basically, a few weeks back an editor declared that they were employee whose job it was to update the article; they were advised about WP:COI and WP:PAID, and stopped editing altogether shortly thereafter. Some IP 112s, however, started showing up to to edit the article. I'm not sure that the IPs are connected to the COI editor, but it does seem like it and a new IP seems to be used each time. In your opinion is this just a coincidence or might it really indicate some WP:UPE going on? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Paw Patrol kid

Hi B, could I please trouble you to look into this? I noticed PAW&PDPFanSteven03061998 today and he definitely appears to also be StevenZekasko03061998 and maybe FamPAWfan but probably definitely StevenPAWFAN and definitely Stevenawpatrolfan and definitely StevenZ0306 and definitely Steven0306. It looks like it's been going on for over a year. I'm curious if there is any identifiable master beyond Steven0306 and if there are any potential socks that might be doing this at other articles. Let me know how I can help. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The first three accounts you note are the only non-stale ones. However, when I started a check, way too many accounts poppped up as socks, so I'd appreciate it if you would create an SPI. Just pick the oldest-created account you're aware of (doesn't matter that it's stale) and list all the others. I'm going out to lunch, but when I get back, I'll continue my work. You might also note at the SPI that I'm already working on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
My guess is you're now asleep. I'll wait as I'd prefer that you create the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Set it up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steven0306. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

ShappeAli

Hi, he had alternative accounts but was he misusing them? The images uploaded by the sock onto commons have been approved there as eligible from flickr so they are not determined as copyvio, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And the copyright infringement by the master? And the copyright infringement by the other puppet who had no edits on Wikipedia but uploaded an image at Commons that was deleted? And the obvious collaboration on en.wiki editing the same articles? Don't call them alternative accounts. They are socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

why adding a podcast which is professionally discuss about a subject which is fit to it and just read a full version of its context, is forbidden and deserve to add a only warning in my discus page? with no refer to page ! Book of Dede Korkut please give me a reference. that you called me spammer Rtirenji (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

CVasil

Hi,very quick drive-by question. I notice you are marking CVasil as being a sock confirmed by check user according to the SPI. I don't see anything in the SPI though. Just curious if you just checked via checkuser or what. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 06:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The sock's userpage would not show confirmed if I hadn't run a check. BTW, next time you see the kind of activity you saw on the user's Talk page, WP:ANI would be the right forum to take it to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If I see that behavior in the future it will go to ANI. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Garra15 (another sock)

Please block User:Garra15, another sockpuppet of User:Martimc123. SLBedit (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

IP address: 83.223.243.82. SLBedit (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User has been blocked. SLBedit (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted User Talk page for Hurledhandbook

Hi Bbb23. Given that Hurledhandbook's engagement has been mostly with me, including their request for dispute resolution, I went to their talk page to see if they had any other comments from other editors yet. I found their talk page to have been deleted, with a notice to contact you about its deletion before doing anything else. So I'm just looking for clarification about why this user's talk page was deleted. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That was an error on my part. I've restored it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this sockpuppetry?

I noticed that an unregistered user vandalized the Boeing 737 MAX article, and just two minutes later a registered user made a similar edit to the page. I checked the registered user's logs and they registered one minute after the IP vandalized the page. Does this count as sockpuppetry? - ZLEA T\C 22:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. They didn't make the same edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Both edits claim that the name of the aircraft was changed from "MAX" to "Final Generation". - ZLEA T\C 22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, but it's really unimportant at this point. The user has made one edit, and the IP has made one edit. Deal with it at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ducktest positive

Hi Bbb23. I have the feeling that the user you blocked indefinitely earlier today, is a puppet of a currently blocked user. The Duck test is strongly positive (same rhetoric, editing pattern, articles) between TheDogsOfWar and Jazz1972. I am pinging Acroterion, the admin who blocked Jazz1972, to share his opinion if he wishes and has some time to spare. Cinadon36 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful

So apparently someone can easily get away with loads of personal attacks, battleground behaviour and removal of sourced information on Wikipedia? Great I'll keep that in mind next time I'm doing something on a talk page. Incisive comment indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Template

Could you please add |post-tropical|POST|Remnant low|RL=cccccc to Template:Storm colour under Potential (PT) in the "Atlantic and East-Central North Pacific basins" area? NoahTalk 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please ask a template editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please block 63.97.8.82

Hi Bbb23. Can you please block this IP? They are doing rapid vandalism to John Roberts. There is a report on AIV but they are non-stop. Thanks. S0091 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. Blocked now. S0091 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Indu Bushan Banerjee

Hi, Indu Bushan Banerjee was an established historian who worked on the history of Punjab. It is an established fact which can be verified by the present day research method of googling. I propose to reinstate the topic and let it develop with contribution from the community. sumir 02:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirsha (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Thank you for stepping in the situation at List of Thor (Marvel Comics) supporting characters. Could you please restore the status quo before the edit war while discussion is taking place?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you still take care of this?TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

reply

Greetings!

WRT [1]... wasn't there a discussion, about six months ago, over whether there was value in filing reports on my wikistalker's use of sockpuppetry?

During that discussion weren't you the one who said that I could continue to make these reports, so long as I left a note, saying I was making the report in the interests of completeness, and understood that there might not be enough incidents to justify a block?

I don't remember the phrase you suggested I put in, but I have been acknowledging this, as per your request.

As for one of those IP being from a different location, I believe my wikistalker uses those services that spoof one's location. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, don't remember. You believe there's spoofing beause it suits you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
If they wish, they can file a report against IPs whose edits don't meet the criteria I set forth above, and note that they are filing the report "for the record", not for action.
Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You didn't say you were filing it "for the record". In any event, if you file another report in the future, god help us, you should not only say "for the record" but refer back to the ANI discussion as it's unlikely that I or anyone else on the team will remember. Best not to file at all, and depending on the reports and regardless of what I said months ago, I may seek a topic ban prohibiting you from filing these reports. They are an enormous waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious new user

HeHe8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user demonstrating a pattern of editing that suggests they have been around before. Also some, though not all, of their edits are borderline disruptive. Their chosen username also looks like a yellow flag to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disregard. User has been indeffed by Canterbury Tail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It was blatantly obvious it that IP user that I blocked a while ago. Obsession with tweaking numbers away from referenced sources and the exact same articles. Even used the same wordings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, new user Gridlust (started — 19:33, 27 June 2019) is probably a sock of a blocked User:Kindlyanswer (blocked — 12:25, 27 June 2019). Here; Gridlust's edits [2], [3] and Kindlyanswer's edit [4]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
New sock — [5] -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu SPI

Re closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodhullandemu: now the IP is making fresh edits again (Special:Contributions/62.253.143.3). Besides, he has been using the same IP since April for the same purpose. While I understand CUs aren't eager to block IPs, surely there must be a way to prevent indefinitely blocked users editing as much as they want logged-out. I'm not sure if you are aware of the details, but Rodhullandemu was blocked by the ArbCom for some pretty serious stuff. --Pudeo (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reopened the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CheckUser

Thx for letting me know. I've added the nutshell back with an edit summary. GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Another CU has undone your edit as "not needed", which I agree with. Why are you editing policies at all? For someone with your lack of experience, you shouldn't be.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Thanks for your intervention here. I wanted to let you know that I opened also a sockpuppet investigation that I think it could be closed now since the user has been blocked. --Mazewaxie 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the report and letting me know. I've posted my findings and closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Also I noticed that you added protection to Mary Jane Watson, but shouldn't be also added the Template:Pp? I would add it myself but I don't know precisely how it works. Thanks for your contributions. --Mazewaxie 18:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It should get added by a bot. I never bother adding the templates. Even if it doesn't get added, it's no big deal. The point is to prevent IPs and new accounts from editing it. Most of them won't know what the little icon means anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for answering. Happy editing. --Mazewaxie 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not enough evidence

I think that a serial sockpuppeteer you blocked has come back to Wikipedia, but I don't have enough evidence for a SPI case. How do I proceeed? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If for some reason you don't want to provide links, then e-mail me with them. Otherwise, your question is useless.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I saw edits by a "newbie" about Cristina Neagu at Romania. Rings a bell? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I'm in the middle of checking and already found several socks. I don't have time to finish now but should be able to later today. In the meantime, could you please reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cristina neagu so I can post my findings when I return? For evidence, you can provide whatever you want plus a link to this discussion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a report?

Hello! Please explain what you meant here. Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You formatted it as a comment, not a 3rr report. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Come on, you're experienced enough to know how to follow the instructions at the top of the page. If they aren't clear enough for you, then look at some of the other reports. Have you never looked at WP:AN3 before? You've been here 12 years and have over 16K edits. You must lead an incredibly disruption-free life. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry

How is this removal of an article that contains some moderate criticism of Wikipedia not censoring? Debresser (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit wars

Hi. I am encountering a situation similar to that for which you blocked me. Currently at Black Widow (2020 film), a user named Cheesecube30 is repeatedly making the same edit, centered around Rachel Weisz's character. He insists the character is Melina Vostokoff / Iron Maiden, but reliable sources only refer to her as "Melina". I've contacted the user in his talk page, but he won't change his mind. Should I keep reverting him or should I wait until someone else does it? El Millo (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You're already edit-warring, which you shouldn't be. It's almost never okay to keep reverting. But I've blocked the new user as a sock and reverted their last edit at the article. Please be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your indefatigable service. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, AO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This guy...

Hi B, could I please trouble you to look at this guy. His user page edits have been hilarious.[6][7][8][9] He was basically just trying to rack up enough edits so he could start editing at Vijay (actor), which is a huge sock magnet and has been set to Extended protection. I dunno. I'm kind of amused at that sort of psycho tenacity. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what master it is. Ponyo last blocked this guy, but that article was usually a Bothiman hotspot. And if you need me to open any SPIs, I'm happy to do that. Gracias, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Cyphoidbomb. This is a Duck. I'm not sure of the exact species, but it's a duck. I'm curious as to who it is but IMO there is no need to hold off blocking them. And I'd also support reverting all their mainspace edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You can wait. I'm checking, and there's more than one. I'll take care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, B. @Ad Orientem: Thanks for cleaning up. In a case like this, what is your process? I feel weird blocking a suspected sockpuppet unless I know definitively who they are a puppet of, but I'd like to hear your opinions about this. Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cyphoidbomb. I'm actually pretty restrained when it comes to suspected socks. But as I noted above this was clearly a WP:DUCK. I try to apply the "reasonable doubt" standard. As soon as I saw the editing history you linked, I knew this was someone who had been here before and was trying to game their edits for the sole purpose gaining EC standing. To use the old common law parlance "guilty, beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." With them engaged in heavy editing I would hit the block button and worry about their identity later on. Even ignoring the socking aspect, running up their edit count in that way has long been regarded as gaming the system and grounds for a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hello, I just saw you delete the article for the Minions sequel Minions: The Rise of Gru claiming G5, however, the film is actually confirmed and currently in production, I don't know if this was a mistake and if there is a process to bring the article back. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I think I did make a mistake, although I can't for the life of me figure out how. In any case, I've restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

I would be appreciated if you could advise on whether any action should be taken on the talk page of the subject. Although I do aware that the talk page can't generally be protected as it will preclude participation by unregistered user, following the block of Yosakrai (a contributor involved in the edit war who has been blocked for two weeks), an IP attempted to paste the content in a substantially similar manner to Yosakrai's argument. According to the history of that talk page, many of the users are the suspected sock farm and/or meatpuppet, and their repeated attempt to challenge the source do not come up with the better sources that aligned to their view. I consider pursuing semi-protection of talk pages to be the solution that may stop this nonconstructive behavior, but I would like other opinion, particularly from you who has already dealt with the issue at the first instance. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed that section completely. It still leaves the ridiculous section above it. I'm tempted to remove that, too, but I suppose it can remain for "historical" purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspicions

Hello, Bbb23,

I don't think this is a full-blown SPI case but I have suspicions that Emilie2606 and Arnold2705 are related. Besides their similar usernames, Emilie wrote the Michael Charles Rockefeller article which was tagged for deletion and Arnold2705 removed the speedy tag (one of his two edits). I think the article might actually be okay but their behavior looks duckish to me. Just a head's up. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus, it might be me but File:MichaelCharlesRockefeller.jpg looks like a completely photoshopped picture and I'm usually not that observant about image quality. What do you think? Does that head belong to that body? Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Liz, your question is the first laugh I've had all day. Thanks! Also, I had the same impression as you when I looked at the picture, but if you take a look at some of the citations in the article, you can see other images of Rockefeller, and they look similar although not quite as pronounced. He just has a big head. I think that particular picture, though, may be a copyright violation. The master claims it's their work, but I don't see any data to support that. The two accounts are socks, and based on their location and the expertise, I suspect it's a UPE. They are now blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) a black-amd-white version of the image can be found here (Israel Herald), so it's obviously a promotional image provided by MCR himself, and the article about him is self-promotion... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a fascinating article, and so poorly copy-edited. Ima keep to myself what I think about that "expert" and philanthropist, and that mug, but I will say that I am very interested in one of the ads on that page: those shoes are bitching, and at only $40 I can buy two pairs to take with me to Nevada in September. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Nevada is a godforsaken wasteland full of weird people, so I don't think it matters what shoes you wear. Or at least it was a godforsaken wasteland when I was there in the 1970s, and I doubt it has improved since then. The only thing that impressed me there, and I visited both Las Vegas and Reno, was Bill Harrah's auto collection, the largest in the world, a collection that is no more since his greedy heirs sold off almost the entire collection as soon as they got their hands on it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you tag the colorized version on Commons as copyright violation? The article has now been deleted per g11, but still...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: You're an outstanding fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect this comment to get so much attention. And I guess Rockefeller just has a big head.
And if my naivete provided you with a laugh today, well, that's one accidental good deed I've done today. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: Nothing to do with naivete. I thought your question "Does that head belong to that body?" was really funny. I mean, even on Wikipedia, how often does anyone ask such a question. In context, it was a perfectly good question, and I don't see how it makes you naive. Now Drmies on the other hand is naive if (a) he thinks he's going to enjoy himself in Nevada and (b) he thinks the final cost of those two pairs of shoes (are they a well-known brand?) will really be $40. And where the hell does that online seller exist? I couldn't find anything on their website about their physical location(s), which is very suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Liz: now count it as 2 good deeds. I followed the edit summary looking for some good old 'harassment' and all I got was giggles. Thanks to Thomas.W for sharing the link which allowed me to see the now deleted pic. For what its worth, I can see that the subject is sitting with his neck extended and closer to the camera than his body. This combined with the distortion offered by a wide angle lens (which BTW is infamous for magnifying people's nose) gives us an impression that this head doesn't really belong to that body. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bohemiclavulus

Hi, Bohemiclavulus that you deleted was a genuine article, i think it could be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding this issue here:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate.

Tired of letting people get await with "it". Intolerance to nullcruft. Didn't look beyond making sure he was not very recent SPA. Opportunity to educate. Dreams of being a writer quashed long ago. (Incivil, non AGF, opinions of them dying before they are uttered.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay to ask here?

I'd wondered if I'd complained about the issue with Kirkland & Ellis to the wrong board? I'm not experienced with this. The issue is adding sensationalist content to the lead paragraph, with an edit war brewing from it. I had asked an Administrator to look into it a few days back, but they happen to be on vacation, so tried to deal with the issue myself. Could you redirect me, perhaps? Lindenfall (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the other user's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd attempted clarity. They are repetitively adding information to the lead of the article that is not covered in the article, contrary to MOS:LEAD, in a WP:Coatracking manner that sensationalizes it, as seen in the edit history, predating the TALK discussion. Surely, there is some way to correct this to meet policy other than edit-warring? Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The information added to the lede is in the body of the article, and I don't see it as "sensationalizing". Nonetheless, if you disagree with the edits (or some of the edits), you'll have to go through the usual methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
We must be looking at different pages, because information added to the lead is not in the body of the article. Only Epstein was even mentioned, in one brief sentence. I then added Toys R Us, during the growing edit war (to show where it did belong), in one even briefer sentence; China Fishery was named by the editor in the lead, and there has been restored and remains, but now unnamed (though with unformatted source), and still does not appear in the body. The elusive dispute resolution must be what I was seeking, all along. Lindenfall (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my change to NAC

Hi, one other question (sorry for bombarding you with them); why did you revert my change on NAC? It's not clear to me that NAC doesn't allow non-admins to close community sanction discussions. Not saying that I worded it appropriately, but I do think that there should be some type of mention that these rules don't apply to all discussions requiring community consensus. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my changes to userpages unilaterally

Hi, why are you reverting my good-faith changes to userpages which mark users banned under WP:3X as being banned under WP:3X? They are, in fact, banned under WP:3X as these users engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active and the sockmaster template allows to mark a user for being banned under the rule. Thanks -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your disregard for policy, which was egregiously demonstrated today at ANI, when you closed a community ban discussion, is making me wonder if you are sufficiently competent to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, these kinds of actions on you part are disruptive and blockable. Do you even read the policy you cite? WP:3X says, "Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page with {{sockpuppeteer|banned}}." Are you an administrator or an SPI clerk? And don't even think of wikilawyering about the policy language. If I see any more of this sort of behavior from you, you risk being blocked. You were let off far too lightly at ANI for your actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no requirement that the template be updated, but if it is added it should be done by an SPI Clerk/Checkuser or an admin versed in WP:SOCK (per the policy you're quoting "Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page"). There are limited instances where a sock tag placed by a Clerk or CU should be modified by others, and edit warring with a Checkuser regarding the inclusion or display of a checkuser tag is...unwise. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I did read it, it says normally, which means I don't have to be an administrator or SPI clerk,and these actions are not disruptive. I am not trying to Wikilawyer, but that is exactly what it says. I get you're upset at me, but I did not intend to disregard policy. I am trying best to keep my cool. Please stop reverting my changes unilaterally. While I'm at it, please see that Mzmadmike was in fact banned by the community, so marking him as banned is appropriate. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the policy. "Normally" in this instance means that Admins and Clerks normally use the tags as part of the SPI process, not that it's normally admins and clerks who use the tags. The normally in this instance applies to use, not who is using them. Please don't continue to modify checkuser tags places by admins and clerks if they have requested you stop. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One last warning. I reverted your changes to Mzmadmike's userpage because it's not your role to tag any userpage. If the closing administrator wishes to tag the userpage, that's up to them. You have a real problem with WP:IDHT in addition to everything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, I'm trying very hard to be polite, and maybe I'm simply misunderstanding something, but I see no policy saying that non-admins cannot mark users banned by the community as banned on their userpage, especially when made in good faith. @Ponyo: is there something I am missing? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Rockstone If you take a look at Template:Sockpuppeteer, you will notice that the documentation states "In general, this template should only be used by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process." - ZLEA T\C 22:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ZLEA: first of all, thank you, that answers one of my questions, although I was thinking more about the banned user template Template:Banned_user, which doesn't say who can or can't apply it to a page. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hey! You blocked 2.92.126.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month after I reported them at WP:AN/EW for edit warring at Napoleon III. A new IP made their first and only edit today by placing a message on my talk page: "Please comment on the topic Napoleon III. Then we will see how to reach consensus. Although - Silentium videtur confessio - silence itself implies consent. Isn't it?". Could you block this IP for block evasion? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User admitted to being the same person: [11] [12]. --MrClog (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was over-extended doing other things. Ohnoitsjamie nicely took care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A bad block

You do a lot of good editing here, so I was a little surprised to see your indefinite block of new editor Angelarking. The complaint against them was that they were deleting "sourced" material, but most of the sources involved were opinion articles, which as I'm sure your know are frowned on as sources for BLP material... and in some cases, those sources were being used to synthesize more generalized statements. All in all, most of this user's deletions were one that a good user would be apt to do... or, at least, I would like to believe so, as I independently look over the article (after it was raise at BLPN), and found myself deleting much of the same material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected paid editing

Hello. In November of last year you deleted Smartworks for being the creation of a blocked or banned user, but the article has now been recreated by Ganeshvermaofficial, and deleted again, now as G11. Do you remember, or have a note of, who the blocked or banned user was, and could there be a connection between that blocked or banned user and the new account (an account that has done nothing but creating promotional articles...)? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please review

Hello, I notice you removed my response to Jmaynard and I respect your decision. I presented evidence to Doug Weller and Koncorde at [13] regarding this situation to ask their opinions on how it should be reported. I would appreciate any recommendation you may make as well. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You're fortunate I haven't blocked you, and not just for the personal attack. Posting to my Talk page isn't a very good idea. And if I ever see you make another personal attack like the last one, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Obsuser

I put my comments back now. I hope there is no problem to have same comments there again after block expired, with new signature (date in the signature). I am sorry if I broke rules when commenting there while blocked but I thought it is not problematic because my page was not locked so I felt it was convenient to answer to the user Mm.srb's statements there put after block. Sorry again. --Obsuser (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hey Bbb23, i may be wrong, but i thought that User:Zerograv10 was asking a question to Oshwah in good faith and i was answering him when you reverted him. Do you think i'm mistaken ? Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

wowser

I know admins earn their enemies .. but RIP? ... Just Wow. — Ched :  ?  — 02:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Investigation

Hello, I have reopened another investigation for RadyoUkay819. Can you check? Thanks Triila73 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

You are a very patient person. Not just today, generally. I appreciate the care and attention you devote to Wikipedia and to blocked editors. --Yamla (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: Actually I don't think of myself as patient. Quite the opposite. But maybe my self-perception is skewed. Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Update / Additional Information Request

Good Afternoon. I'm still hoping that we can get things resolved on the Signature Bank page. I was hoping that you could provide me with some additional feedback to help me become a better editor. You can see my latest notes on the talk page.

Thanks, Welltraveled (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Truly appreciate your handling of the situation w/that disruptive account so quickly! Thanks for continuing to make Wikipedia a productive space. --Simtropolitan (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thanks, it's an LTA, and there were many others.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Is it allowed to recreate an article that is deleted because of a sock? Triila73 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's better to ask me to restore it and to explain why you think it should exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes can you please restore it? It's really for WikiProject:Beauty Pageants and we create articles for every national pageant titleholder. Triila73 (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Uh, restore what?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The articles you deleted. I'll give you the name of the articles that you deleted.

Please restore the following from above. Thanks Triila73 (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Please review all of the articles because they need work, both in reliable sourcing and English language areas.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding capital of Paramara dynasty

My issue is regarding the removal of Ujjain as the capital of Paramara empire. It is mentioned in the history section of Wikipedia page of "Ujjain" that Paramaras shifted their capital from Ujjain to Dhar. Same is also mentioned on the wikipedia page of Dhar (political history subsection) that Vairisimha of Paramara dynasty shifted capital from Ujjain to Dhar. So if the capital is shifted, it means at one point of time Ujjain was their capital. Also in the Medieval history textbook of class 11 NCERT by Indian government, it is mentioned that Ujjain was their capital for some duration.Ketan rana123 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You can restore your change, but it would be good to have something in the body of the article that indicates what happened (as it does in the Ujjain article). Dhar is mentioned as the capital at least once in the body. You could perhaps copy what it says in the Ujjain article along with the source. Finally, in the future, if you are going to make a substantive change to an article, it's best to use an edit summary explaining what you're doing. Edit summaries may not be required (unfortunately, in my view), but it would make it less likely for your edit to be undone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information about Exert yourself

Hello, I noticed that you have blocked User:Exert yourself as a CU block, and I wish to know whether other socks were found or not at that check if it's allowed, thanks in advance.-- CreampieWelcome 06:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hamish: I blocked Exert yourself as a sock of It's gonna be awesome (talk · contribs · count), whom I also blocked. As you probably know, It's gonna be awesome is currently blocked at zh.wiki until the end of November of this year, apparently for a violation of a topic ban (I don't read Chinese and machine translations aren't ideal). Exert yourself, who also has edited at zh.wiki, has not been blocked. Although I don't know how such matters are handled at zh.wiki, my suggestion is you request a zh.wiki CU to check the two accounts. Let me know if you need more information.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for you reply. A zhwiki sysop had done a CU block on Exert yourself yesterday as what you did. But I can't find an investigation here, so I am here, to ask whether other socks of IGBA were found or not.-- Hamish Welcome 03:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hamish: There was no investigation at WP:SPI, and I found no other socks. I'm curious. Why did the zh.wiki CU not indefinitely block IGBA?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I got that. Please notice that there isn't any CU(CheckUser) at zhwiki and that's why this talk is here. For IGBA, as a local sysop, I am now keeping AGF on her for his contribs before. Please advise if I could give you further information.-- Hamish Welcome 14:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hamish: I didn't know that zh.wiki had no CUs. I know that some smaller projects have none, but I would have thought that with over 1M articles, zh.wiki would have at least one. As I understand global policy, in cases where a project has no CUs, a steward is permitted to run a check. Before talking to you, I was in touch with Ajraddatz (a steward) about globally locking Exert yourself and IGBA. He felt at that point that the local communities (en.wiki and zh.wiki) should handle the matter. I'm not sure how you feel about Ajraddatz stepping in and running a check at zh.wiki or how he feels about it in light of this conversation, but I welcome both of your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) zh.wiki has no CUs because of concerns about data security and the Communist Party of China. They were all removed by the WMF. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hamish, please say hello to Tony, a local CU who knows everything - or at least a lot more than I do. I haven't figured out how he does it. I strongly suspect he never sleeps. I think B in TB doesn't stand for Ballioni but bionic.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, as for knowing everything, I just watch Iridescent’s talk page, as he actually remembers everything. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Please allow me to reset this. If you are curious about local CU, you could see this for more but limited information. At my view, Alaa is really a steward since he did a good job at SRCU, which helped our community very much, but I wouldn't say anymore about IGBA after confirming his socks for his recent absence at zhwiki.-- Hamish Welcome 14:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni, greeting from zhwiki and me. Bbb23 said IGBA don't have sleepers, could you advise it's an xwiki result or local result? However it must be the latter in my memory.-- Hamish Welcome 14:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hamish. I am not a steward, so I can’t help on zh.wiki, but like you said, making a request on SRCU would allow a steward to do s local sleeper check using that data. They could also possibly do a loginwiki check to look at account creations if they feel it warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But there are 2 zhwiki requests pending at SRCU, so I am here.-- Hamish Welcome 15:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the two requests at SRCU means you can't add more. As for being "here", I've already answered your questions about the blocks here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to give stewards more requests, I'll notice the case of IGBA locally. For the blocks here, I acknowledged anything, appreciate your help.-- Hamish Welcome 15:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll comment on the zhwiki data on the Meta request. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is getting hard for me to follow, and I didn't even realize things had changed since the last time I looked. So, for my benefit, in an effort to keep this in one place (here) rather than having to jump all over the world, this is the status as I know it: Exert yourself as been globally locked. IGBA has not. Ajraddatz's comment at Meta (thank you) is: "I previously ran this check, and found the results to be  Inconclusive from a technical standpoint. That doesn't mean that those accounts are different people, just that the zhwiki data doesn't give us anything useful to work with."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the talk here could be closed and thank you Alaa and others. Stuffs on IGBA at zhwiki should be locally followed under current situation. Thanks again.-- Hamish Welcome 15:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, I opened this investigation yesterday. Could you please check it? --Mazewaxie 12:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie: I've undone your archiving at the SPI. You are not permitted to archive a report. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry about that. Since the user has been blocked I thought the page could be archived by anyone. Sorry again and thanks for notifying me. Happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 19:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I opened this investigation. Could you please check it? --Mazewaxie 10:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. Happy editing. --Mazewaxie 14:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It's happening again. I have reported him: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. --Mazewaxie 10:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie: Please don't post a message to my Talk page every time you reopen this case. It's unnecessary. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Why isn't it appropriate to give the full facts for the admin ? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. I restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Rpmohak sock?

Hi Bbb23. I noticed you did a checkuser block of User:Rpmohak. I think HimalyaRP1 is a sock of that individual. Their userpages are very similar, and they also tried to move Draft:Manish Raj Pandey out of draft space, just like Rpmohak did [14]. Is it the same individual? I didn't do an SPI because I do not know who the master is, sorry. Agent00x (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Agent00x: You're right and I've blocked the account. Rpmohak is the master. I didn't tag that account and one other for complex reasons. In any case, the master, the new account, and one other account are now all tagged. In the future, if you see something like this, although there's no problem with you notifying me on my Talk page, you can file an SPI and just link the new account with Rpmohak, regardless of whether it's the master. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Scorpion293

Xwiki I am seeing this user active with numbers of sockpuppets, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/mentaldaily.com (and noting that I have just globally blacklisted). Might be worth a check of their haunts, and having a report to all checkusers (local and elsewhere) that the user is now marauding to multiple wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you want me to do. Other than letting people know, is there some action you want me to take locally? As for a "a report to all checkusers", wouldn't it make more sense for you to just e-mail checkusers-l, or don't you have CU permission anywhere anymore? If you don't, I can e-mail checkuser-l for you if you that's what you wish. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus fan suckpuppet

Hi there, I wasn’t sure how to add this to the sockpuppet investigation, but the user is using once again another IP. See this diff. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

CU q

Bbb, if you got a minute, can you run CU on User:Warren Cook Alan Cook, an obvious clone of User:Warren Cook Disney? (And there's User:PizzaDisney1993.) There is more there than I know what to do with, including a couple of apparently legit accounts. Thanks; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: I don't have time to do this right today. I've had a long tiring day in RL. I did a preliminary check and saw two other accounts that were  Technically indistinguishable but behaviorally completely different from the Warren Cook accounts, although they were behaviorally the same as each other. That leads to a question: does the name Warren Cook have any significance that you know of?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I'm not what I would call "refreshed" this morning as after my long day yesterday I had trouble sleeping last night, but at least it's the beginning of a day rather than the end. I blocked China Railway Fan (talk · contribs · count) and ATSFRailfan (talk · contribs · count), the two technically indistinguishable socks I referred to above. I didn't tag them as related to the Warren Cook socks because of the behavioral differences. There is an attenuated tie-in between these two and the Cooks; if you're interested, e-mail me as I'd prefer not to discuss it publicly. As for your question, I don't recognize anyone. Ivanvector, I'm not sure I even know what a YouTube troll is, but how on earth do you know this "not really very well known" troll?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's it. I read pseudonymous open animation website griefer and my sleep-deprived mind turned that into Youtube troll. Anyway, Warren Cook appears to be a bit of a meme and so we should probably disregard username similarity in that case. The rail fan usernames remind me of a recent note on my talk page, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: The two train accounts are Red X Unrelated to The Train Master case. Also, the behavioral evidence doesn't match well. In TTM there's an additional focus on retail establishments, and in mine there's a significant focus on Chinese train related articles. Too bad, I could've tagged them if they were related.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yankeesfan133redsoxhater

Could you please block user:Yankeesfan133redsoxhater as soon as possible for vandalism? CLCStudent (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

>Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from List of ICC World Test Championship records, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. StickyWicket (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

StickyWicket, Bbb23 is an administrator, and apparently he considered your reasoning before deciding not to delete the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
User:TonyBallioni, yep I've realised that now! His username was similar to the person who created it!!! StickyWicket (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it was tagged by yet another user as an A3, which it clearly wasn't, so I declined it, somewhat abruptly because the user should know better. Apparently another user then moved it to draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm wrong. The tag was improperly placed by AssociateAffiliate. I didn't realize the sig doesn't show their real username. I really don't like those kinds of sigs. It's not so bad if it's very close, but this one is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

183.177.231.187

Please take a look at 183.177.231.187 – same editing pattern as now blocked 180.200.51.163. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked this IP as a WP:DUCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If you know who this is, my block log from today may be of interest. There's the AfD guy, which is logged as long-term abuse, and some vandal/revert bot, which is logged as disruptive editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89 and Ad Orientem: it's the same. This is the derp vandal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(lead2061)

(lead2061) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user whose one and only edit was to post a credit on someone's talk page for their ITN nomination. I don't think I discovered ITN existed until sometime in my 2nd year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: That's just because you're slow. It's hard with only one edit, but I don't see anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Signature

I've just tested my signature in MS Edge, Internet explorer, Firefox, Chrome and K-Meleon... it seems to be working fine. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As you now know, I've already responded on your Talk page. I feel even worse now because you went to so much trouble, so I'll apologize again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

deleted sockpuppet investigation

Could you advise why you deleted the sock puppet investigation of 78.144.83.73 and others? The sock admitted they were banned user twice, one of which they even identified themselves as the specific banned user Sayerslle. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I said why in my edit summary. If you want to file a report, it should be at the master's SPI, not a new one identified as an IP. Additionally, the IPs in question have already been blocked, and the other IPs have not edited recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, when you say file at the master's SPI, does that mean simply add a new entry/section on this page? Do admin then get notified automatically? I am seeking a range block as user seems to simply keep resetting their IP. Also, the block on the most recent IP is only for 72 hours, as the person who put the block in was not aware it was a long-term banned editor. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You must WP:SIGN your posts on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Following the instructions at WP:SPI, you would reopen the Sayerslle case with your report. However, don't bother as you're not going to get what you are requesting. the IP who has edited most recently is blocked (it's imaterial that you think it's not long enough) and the unblocked IPs on the range haven't edited since August 1, which is too old. So think of this experience as instructive for the future, but there's nothing for you to at SPI now.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Another possible sock of Max Arosev

Hi Bbb23, I do not know how to reopen a closed SPI report so I am posting a message here instead. I think User:Mcguvker is another sock of Max Arosev based on their edits. The report was just closed earlier today [[15]. Let me know if there is anything I need to do. Thanks. S0091 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I blocked the account. Next time, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI for adding a new report. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Puffery at Keith Fink

Could you take a look at Keith Fink? There's something fishy going on there involving multiple accounts who are all adding similar puffery, such as 1, 2, 3, where he's constantly described as "high profile", "widely acclaimed", etc. I'd prefer to avoid taking action myself so that I can clean up the article without people yelling at me about being "involved". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Vnesheconombank

Goodday/ several times u disagree with my changes about this article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Vnesheconombank I guess u don`t see link on the official site veb.ru, where u cen find new name of the orgnisation and link on https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-ratings-of-12-Russian-financial-institutions-outlook-stable--PR_394639 Where u can find Operating and net income in 2019. I ask u to read this articles before disagree with my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVAGreen (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Itsxerox

Hi there. I need some advise. Sockpuppeteer Itsxerox, which you already blocked twice (here and here), keeps creating new accounts as fast as we block them. This time it's OmKumar112. On one hand they are evading a block. On the other hand, 90% of their edits are legit. On the third hand (I'm an octopus, still have a five left), I'm sick and tired of reporting them every time, waiting two weeks for cu, and then needing to waste my time reverting 10-20% of the edits. Any suggestions? --Muhandes (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Another possible sock of Joker5122

Hello,

I think User:Deathstroke5122 may be a sock puppet of User:Joker5122. User:Deathstroke5122 is trying to contact me in a similar way to User:Joker5122. This user keeps creating new accounts that disrupt wikipedia. Can you help me? Cardei012597 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi Bbb, I have sent you an email. Please respond when you can. Thanks Nightfury 13:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to file a report at WP:SPI if you think the users are socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
To be frank it isnt worth the hassle IMO, I don't think it can wait a week or two. If you want me to I will. Nightfury 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Fuck it. I have time... Nightfury 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Smells like undisclosed paid editing

I'm not sure what to do with this yet, but this user is giving off the aroma of undisclosed paid editing. Allegedly a 15-year-old from Miami Florida, they've created articles on a Japanese singer and a Japanese group, an American former child actress with seven credits, an American entrepreneur who started a cosmetic company, a relatively obscure mobile video game, a Bollywood actress from the 1980s, a 17-year-old American YouTuber, and an award page for Zeenat Aman, an actress most popular in the 70s and 80s. There have been other articles as well. Assuming the best of faith, it's possssible that they're just prodigious, but something seems strange. I guess if anything else comes up I'll follow up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

worth noting that one of the articles they created recently was AFD'd a while ago. Praxidicae (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked Nyantiaz, although it probably isn't for the reason you might expect. If you look at the confirmed puppets, you'll see what I mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Kids. Amiright? Thanks for the hustle. It'd be nice if the Wikipedia software could do some of the background checks automatically. Admins get a ping: "Yo, this guy has four accounts going." We can look, we can decide whether they are bad-faith accounts or not, their privacy is protected, less weight on CUs... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

range block

In regard to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradley026258, do you think it's reasonable to consider a range block, or should we wait for more examples to occur? Wanted to ask, because I wasn't sure if you caught that in my comment, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The last edit in the range was on July 22, which is too old.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I will continue to keep track and open a new report if you believe it's necessary, but the disruption has resumed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
2601:248:4B02:E040:E14A:976C:8A5:CA5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You can disregard the request here. I've opened a report at WP:AN#Range block needed for problematic IPs. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser

Drmies participated in the AFD discussion, so I'm coming to you. A quick yea or nay, please. If it's yea, I'll block, delete, and close the AFD discussion; multiple accounts combined with falsification of sources (I checked some of them out.) in an autobiography is over the line. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Socks?

Is Srinesh.saravanan (talk · contribs · count) the master in this case or someone else? I can't seem to find who but a bunch of SPAs have recreated a favorite article of theirs. Praxidicae (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you've lost me. What "case"? There is no case for Srinesh. Do you mean are accounts like Devon2k22 (talk · contribs · count) socks of Srinesh? I have no idea without checking. Looks like they were created after I checked Srinesh.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I should have clarified, who is the master for Srinesh? I see he's cublocked but no case. Praxidicae (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Look at my block notice on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Enchanté de vous connaître

Thanks
~ thanks Bb ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a very funny sketch, thanks. Never heard of Key & Peele, but they're good, although the French gibberish was a tad overdone. The woman (is she well known?) is very pretty, even when she repeated the same gibberish. I'm moderately fluent in French, and although I'm not a lexicon for French foods, many of the words, which were said with an exaggerated accent and as rapidly as possible I'm fairly certain don't exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bb ~ yes she is very pretty ~ I don't know who she is ~ I'll ask my dad when he comes home ~ I speak very little french ~ my dad he speaks more ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Mekia Cox. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G ~ Bb ~ this is a good author David Lebovitz he writes a lot about the streets and the markets in Paris ~ I learned of him from this book ~ My Paris Kitchen ~mitch~ (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Mitch, please don't call me Bb. Either Bbb23 or Bbb. Uncle G sometimes calls me Bbbbbbbbb (I forget how many), but that's because he stutters. No worries, though, he and his speech therapist or working on it. As for the Paris markets, they are wonderful. Not as good as they were before Paris began having supermarkets, though. In my view, much of the best food in France is not in Paris but in the French countryside. And a helluva lot cheaper.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem ~mitch~ (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's AFD !votes

Hi, regarding this, there are other examples of editors striking Gregory's recent AFD !votes, eg here. As Gregory was a prolific participant in AFD there are bound to be other open AFDs in which he has participated and I am just wondering what the rule is on whether his !votes should stand or not.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I unstruck EMG's vote and removed the responses along with it. If there are others, please let me know. As for the "standard", if there is an open AfD that has more than one vote from EMG (meaning two or more of the accounts they operated), then the duplicate(s) may be struck. I don't believe there are any, though. I think all of the AfDs (there are several) in which this happened are closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Here are two others: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Weyl (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natti Ronel. There are more where Lightburst has added his note, but at least the actual vote hasn't been struck.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Telford's Page

I don't know why you undid all my edits - they are all sourced, no self-promotion, nothing. The page as it was was so outdated. Please bring back the edits I made. And if you have any questions about sourcing, please let me know, before simply undoing my work. I spent a lot of time on it. Thanks.

Also - I am not being paid by anyone. The page that you reverted to has not been updated since 2014. I honestly don't see how my edits are not useful or do not add value. Zoe Telford is one of UK's most recognizable faces and a great actress. She has fans, like me, who are frustrated by the dearth of information on her work.

Jack Jack.D.Tipper@outlook.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.D.Tipper (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's AFD !votes question about notifying AfD participants

No more of this nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

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

I have not been striking the votes of the (sock) editor, just notifying the AfD participants that the user is a blocked sock with this: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC) or similar. I saw you reverted with an edit summary about a struck vote, however I did not strike the vote. I wondered if this is not information that the AfD participants and closing administrator should have. The previous AfDs I have participated in, some type of notification was used. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to do what you did. I can't comment on other AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, I was just looking at an AfD and article, I don't want to be rude or anything but I was just wondering if you got this one right? I am so use to seeing E.M. Gregory comments and he does good work on wiki. I fail to see how he can operate another account. Maybe you can have a second look? Govvy (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 is incorrect on this one - WP:SOCKSTRIKE in fact explicitly notes AFD contributions from sockpuppets as being something to strike: "In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods." - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
That is an essay, and what you're doing is wrong. There's no reason to strike the vote of a long-standing editor who has been found to be a sock if there aren't multiple votes from the accounts they operated. I'm not going to edit-war with you, but I'm disappointed that an administrator would take such actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory was not banned at the time of making those edits, and AFAIK is still not banned (merely blocked). The sock edits that commented in AFDs where he was banned by his topic ban should be struck if there are any ongoing discussions IMO, but I dont know if that is as clear cut as a site banned editor. nableezy - 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, Bbb23, that also is a reason why I thought E.M.Gregory should be listed as the master account, makes it more straightforward in what was a "sock" and what should potentially be struck as a violation of his topic ban. nableezy - 14:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There's no reason to strike the vote of a long-standing editor. IMO being a long-standing editor confers greater responsibility, not less. Running multiple socks in AfDs, probably lying about in the SPI (his explanation about a drunk friend at a conference is unconvincing given the evidence), even having the socks talk to one another, demonstrates such a degree of planned and executed deception, over such a long period of time, that it would nullify good faith in a long-standing editor, at least in the area of AFD. There is no sign of regret, and I expect he will be emboldened by admin support for him. -- GreenC 15:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think anyone is under the impression that Bbb23 supports socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh please, Tony, of course I support socking. It's a noble endeavor, and our policies are far too harsh. Perhaps I should start an RfC to unblock all socks, sort of like the proposal to dismiss all our current ArbCom members. What a world.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Jobless Bbb23 outside the gates of closed SPI office.
Indeed, I am with Bbb23 here. Why the hell will Bbb23 not support socking, it his bread and butter. If no one socks, the WP:SPI would have to be closed rendering Bbb23 utterly jobless. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
At the least I see this sock as a disruption to the project. It is hard to assume that EMG made good faith edits in AfDs when the editor is already been blocked indefinitely for having acted in bad faith. It seems prudent to strike, or at a minimum notify AfD participants and closing administrators. WP:SOCKSTRIKE may be an essay, but it reads like a useful guideline. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple possible sock sightings

Hi Bbb23. Sorry to drop these on you but I'm pretty busy in the real world at the moment. I have received two reports of potential socks. The first here and the second here. The first report is probably MJH. Both of the reporting editors have a history of spotting socks in the past. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in socks you've already blocked. I blocked two of the accounts identified in the second report. The third is Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion

HI Bbb23, My page P. C. Thomas (educator) was deleted on 8th August 2019, I was having talks with user Thjarkur (talk) who has initially place the tags on the articles, as per the discussions we had the article was cleaned up and all the advertisement material was removed. and user Thjarkur had messaged in my talk page to just write to him again when I believe the article is verifiable and neutral. After the article was fit to be verified and neutral according to Wikipedia policy, I sent him a message after which user Thjarkur replied that it is done and the article was moved from draft to article space, in the meanwhile the article was deleted by you. Please let me know if the article could be restored.

Bbb23 Please guide me as to what has to be done further.Biggreentreeus (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 9. —Cryptic 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My defense

When you reverted me at AN/I, you wrote Undid revision 910123827 by Dicklyon (talk) you'll have to find another way to present your "defense". So maybe you can give me a clue here. What are rules of process at AN/I, where a lone contributor is often attacked by a pack of drama-mongering AN/I regulars like BMK? You've put "defense" in quotes. Does that mean I'm not really allowed a defense, or do I just have the wrong concept of what that should be like? Also note the BMK was allowed to retroactively put new charges at the top of the votes, in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dicklyon_violati*ng_WP:TPO_in_discussion_about_proposal_to_block_him_above; maybe you need to remove that section, too, if I can't add my own clarificatins? I would appreciate your input on what my options are, when people are voting to indef me without even any allegations of disruptive behavior; how can that be a thing we just look away from? I expect it will close as no consensus, but I'd prefer to clarify it in such a way that a closing admin could see the travesty that BMK is perpetrating here. I appreciate your consideration of my predicament. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: One more attempt at sandwiching in material between other editors' votes or comments, and you risk being blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So you're not willing to engage constructively? Just forbid me from doing what BMK was allowed to do? Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Zoe

As a passer-by, looks to me like you reverted everything Jack added to the Zoe article even though some of it could be considered simple factual information (infobox, etc.), some was referenced, and some could have remained with a citation needed. Perhaps you should help Jack rather than wacking this newbie so hard. David notMD (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been helping the user repeatedly, more than I usually would for a disruptive fan editor. I'm done helping, and they appear to be done with Wikipedia. Assuming they don't change their mind, as far as I'm concerned, it's no great loss. If you want to restore information to the article, that's up to you, but not with a fact tag attached to it: it must be reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The extent of your help was a bunch of threats and demeaning statements. You now refer to me as “disruptive” when everything I have done has been in good faith. I don’t know why you have a problem with my entries - and I will try again with all the cited and reliable sources. For now, I am humbly asking you to please just give me a break. And there is no need to be rude or personal. My time is as important as yours or anyone else’s. Thank you. 

Jack.D.Tipper (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the picture I uploaded is a promo still copyrighted by Kudos Films Limited - which I believe would be fall under the Fair Use doctrine. Jack.D.Tipper (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny Newyorkbrad

I'm aware of at least a couple instances of NYB making jokes about a candidates usernames. There's this one (which I'm a little salty about because I made a similar joke in my head) and also this one. Seeing you breakout the "what does your name mean question" was unexpected so I thought I'd give you a little more background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Fullrabb

Hiya Bbb23, I was just wondering if this account Fullrabb was related to E.M.Gregory at all. He started editing again from 27 July, it was just the timing of it and some cross association with the Gregory account. Regards, Govvy (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you guys are asking here, but I am not anyone else if that is the question. I am, however, still pretty green to the Wiki arts. Let me know if I'm doing something wrong. Thanks. Fullrabb (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb

Editor from The Exodus

I think the editor Fajkfnjsak, who you banned for disruptive editing, is editing under the newly created account, Niaf7J1mdM. The editor had used similarly name accounts that you previously banned here. The new account is adding the same content with the same sourcing as the other account [16]. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Another user, Ermenrich, has opened a sockpuppet investigation. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I think another one just showed up [17].--Ermenrich (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For 123.192.33.207, Please see[18]

Hello. I am Chinese administrator[19]. I think you do not this IP who he is[20]. He does many Vandalism in zh[21], ja[22],zh-yue[23] and en[24]. If you do not believe me, you may ask administrator Alex Shih[25]. Please notice this IP. --Outlookxp (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Outlookxp: At en.wiki, we do not block IPs who have not edited recently. This IP hasn't edited here since August 4. Please stop your crusade in multiple forums to block the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

I apologize, I did not realize I was supposed to reopen the old discussion instead of starting a new one. Do I just edit the existing discussion, or is there a specific protocol to reopening one? I did not see any particular guideline. Please advise. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just explain why you think the user's edit today changes things.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I followed your instructions and the discussion was archived. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do in this situation. You reverting my report is not helpful and does not in anyway resolve the situation. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Willthacheerleader18: You revert me again, and I will block you. Your report is meritless. The user hasn't edited since August 8. There is absolutely nothing new.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Their response on the talk page and their continued reverting shows they have no intention of stopping edit warring and continuing to add unsourced information to the article. I have limited access to a computer at the moment and so I was not able to report until today. This edit war has been going on for over two weeks. I am looking for assistance in handling the situation, not trying to be disruptive. The original reviewer asked that I reopen a report if their editing had continued, which it had. Twice now. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless the user resumes editing at the article, there is nothing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
They did resume editing the article. The first time they did, I brought it to the noticeboard that day and you reverted it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
And quite honestly, I do not see the point now in notifying the edit warring noticeboard when they do again, because it will likely be reverted, again. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You are being disingenuous and annoying. I permitted you to add to the existing report. The fact that that report was then archived without action has nothing to do with my "revert". Do not post here anymore on this subject. There is nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about which topics are relevant in a 'Personal Life' section

Hi Bbb23, I was hoping you could point me to some resources about what sort of information is relevant in a bio page's 'Personal Life' section. In particular, in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann 's page, you removed my edit about his well-documented personal friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and someone's else contribution about his endorsement of Barack Obama, but you retained the information that he was a birdwatcher and archaeologist. I couldn't find any resources indicating that those interests were any more than hobbies, and therefore I wonder whether they are more relevant than his friendships with notable people or political endorsements. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonerdagon (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't retain anything. I removed only your edit because it was an indirect, sly BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

ani note

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Enforcement_log mentioned you. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

TaylanUB SPI

Hi Bbb23! Please don't take my revert as impudent. I think it was a good-faith, legit report based on the description the filer gave. The linked deletion review is about an article a sockpuppet of TaylanUB created. I'm not sure about the merits of the filing, but I think the filing itself was kosher. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Next time, don't revert an action I've taken at SPI. You should have come to my Talk page first, not after. The filer did a piss-poor job presenting evidence. I had no idea that Rhinocera created that article, and I shouldn't have to dig to find it. In any event, the report is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Will do next time. Thanks for looking into it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion and Ban on Creation of Nikhil Anand

Hey,

I am writing this as you placed the limitations on the page creation of Nikhil Anand. I will be thankful if you could guide me with the necessary expectations with the article and if you can please remove the limitations on creating the article. Also, if you can share your email I'd please do so that we can communicate easily.

Also, I want to create the page with bigger and better media links which meets wikipedia guidelines.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about socks

I've come across a user I'm 99% certain is a sock of someone who was previously blocked a couple of years back. But since all their socks were blocked last time, I'm wondering how they managed to create a new ID. That's why I don't have the confidence to report them again. Any advice for me? Deb (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I need to know the details. E-mail me if you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, have done. Deb (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Just out of curiosity, Deb is there a technical restriction that prevents someone from making a new account when the block was couple of years back? --DBigXrayᗙ 17:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, that's partly why I'm here. Deb (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I don't know what block you're referring to, but if "block account creation" was set in the block options (see WP:OPTIONS) then the user will not be able to create an account as long as the block is active (autoblocks follow accounts around). If it's an IP block with account creation disabled, or the block is set to "prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (I think only available to checkusers), then nobody will be able to edit or create an account from that IP. If there are no active blocks then there shouldn't be anything preventing account creation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 12— August 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector appreciate your long answer above. If the sock was indeffed, how long does the "block account creation" feature remains active? I doubt it could stay for couple of years. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that 'account creation blocked' lasts as long as the original block. When I open the block dialog (as seen by administrators) the 'Account Creation Blocked' is already checked off. Nearly all of my own blocks have this set. One reason not to set ACB is if you are asking somebody to change their user name. ACB only matters if the person tries to create a new account on the same IP they originally used. If years have passed, that might be unlikely. I can also check the box preventing logged-in users from using the IP address, but would hesitate to use that as a non-checkuser, except for proxy blocks or webhost blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In my view, this is a pointless discussion. I can't prove a negative and I find the technical descriptions as to how some of these options work to be unclear, but the reality is that socks of blocked accounts are created all the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat

Hello, you had looked into this before.[26] It happened again.[27] What should be done? Omikroergosum (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle such remarks?

Bbb23, I could use some advice as to how to handle these comments at WP:AN#Saxifrage

  • "There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation on Saxifrage because he actually read the evidence..." To imply that all dissent from your opinion is because we didn't read the evidence or that it's "vengeful retaliation" because we unanimously disagree with his conclusion seems to me to be a personal attack against everyone who disagrees with him as well as being uncivil.
  • "Any perceived incivility seems bought by the aggrieved rather than from Saxifrage (yes, I mean 'bought')." To be blunt, this feels very much like I'm being literally accused of bribery and meatpuppetry...perhaps others too?

How would you recommend handling this? Such behavior seems highly out of line especially for an admin. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That thread should be closed. I almost did so myself but decided it wasn't worth the grief.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I agree with that to an extent, but I'm more concerned with how to handle those remarks. Should I post a warning on the user's page? Ask for them to be blocked? Being accused of criminal activity seems to be WAY out of line for an admin to do without any evidence. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't understand what Mark means by "bought". Why don't you ask him? You may get an evasive answer, but, if so, you can always say what you think it means and why and ask him if that's what he meant. As long as the thread remains open, I'd keep your remarks there rather than say on Mark's Talk page, but that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Buffs (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

could you please take a second look at Al Seckel?

Could you please take a second look at your decision to block Ronz (talk · contribs) for 24 hours? The problem at Al Seckel is more serious than his incivility and WP:OWN attitude. He may be an excellent editor elsewhere on Wikipedia, for all I know, but at Al Seckel he is WP:NOTTHERE to improve the encyclopedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching this slippery fish.[28] "I've been using Wikipedia for a long time and then familiarised myself with the site's rules and how things are done here before opening an account and starting editing". Lmfao. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC News (TV channel)

Hello Bbb23, Maybe I'm getting a little suspicious, but suddenly another new redlink name MichaelScott9986000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emerged since the latest round of edits on this page and appears to be edit warring. Also user appears to be interested in other BBC programmes, as per previously blocked 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just wonder if this is yet another case of socking? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. David J Johnson (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was about to go looking for a CU after reading that unblock request. Thanks Bbb23. – bradv🍁 14:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
See, the CU found you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sartorialaficionado

Thanks, I was in the process of filling out a request for check user when I went back to the user's contributions to get more diffs and saw you'd already blocked it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad I saved you the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TY

thanks for [29] - I'll try to get it right the next time. Been a while since I was there. — Ched :  ?  — 23:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it'll all come back to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Resurrecting a Deleted Pterosaur page

Hey, um do you think we can restore the page Hamipteridae? The page got taken down when the person was banned(?). It would be really appreciated. OviraptorFan (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

'allo

Are you finding any of the continued verbiage at Nzggsvd useful? Or can I yank tpa?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Investigation

I have reopened another investigation for RadyoUkay819, do NOT delete the articles of the user created. Thanks Triila73 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, no response from the investigation yet. Triila73 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Atul bahl

Hello. Today, you deleted Atul bahl per CSD A7 (but it was also nominated for G11). Now, a similar page has been created at Draft:Atul Bahl by a new editor (8 minutes after they registered), and since then, User:Atulbahl1986 has not edited. I have noticed the original state of Draft:Atul Bahl is seemingly the same as the final state of Atul bahl (but its creator has now changed it) (seemingly the same as in starts with same db-multiple template). I couldn't find a request for its contents anywhere. Is the new Draft:Atul Bahl the same as Atul bahl used to be? Does this imply a connection between their creators? Edible Melon (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged both accounts. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI

For whatever it's worth (uhh, I guess nothing at all?) Shreyashv26 has cavalierly threatened to evade their block. I'm trying to get them to just go the unblock route, but I thought I'd mention it just for fun. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing?

I really would like to know why you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand‎; and please tell me where I can appeal that, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I already said at the SPI that I would not explain my reasons. There is nowhere to appeal that I'm aware of.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra:, you might want to ask another Checkuser to see if they agree with not pursuing it. Not an appeal so much as a second opinion. While I guess I can imagine situations where closing with no explanation whatsoever is necessary, the ones I can imagine are pretty rare, and I'm sure getting zero feedback can be frustrating. Maybe another CU who is willing to use email can at least give you an outline of what went wrong without divulging anything private. If not, at least you'll know that two CU's agree. FWIW, Bbb23's bedside manner often sucks, but he's almost always right about the underlying action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Floq, if you're going to make cracks like this on my Talk page, then don't post on my Talk page. I may have not answered Huldra's questions, which is my perogative, but I was absolutely polite, both at the SPI where I spent an enormous amount of time evaluating the evidence Huldra e-mailed me and here. So give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Odd; the only thing I criticized was your bedside manner; are you under the impression that it’s good? As I specifically said, you’re usually right, so I personally don’t doubt there’s good reason to close it. But I’m familiar with your abilities in this area. I’m not questioning your CU skills, and I made no comment about the time you spent looking into it. But a good faith editor concerned about socking needs *some* kind of feedback: Would more evidence help? Is it poorly thought out evidence, or just insufficient, or wrong? Does she risk a block if she reports this suspicion with more evidence again? Is the only problem that she didnt post the evidence on-wiki? etc. etc. etc. But OK, if this is a completely criticism-free free zone then I’ll unwatch your page. —Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:, thanks. The thing is: Gilabrand has a history of socking. Last time a check was conducted, several other (previously unknown) socks came up. And it is frustrating to see that some editors don't think a block is valid for themselves, only for others. Anyway; @Doug Weller:, @PhilKnight:, for a second opinion, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A few things: Huldra, you emailed the checkuser OTRS queue, which is a bit understaffed and not every CU has access to it. We mainly use it for IPBE requests, to be honest, and I usually try to go through it once a week or so to clear any requests. It really isn't a replacement for SPI and if things are private and you need to share them with a CU, emailing someone directly is better in part because OTRS is clunky and not intuitively designed. That, and you'll usually get a quicker response.
On the merits of the case: while I have not looked at CU, based on the evidence you presented, I think you've shown that two editors are not from North America or the UK and have interest in a country that is not in North America or Europe. That isn't in itself reason to block. Anyway, I don't think this needed a second opinion, but since I had access to the OTRS queue and not everyone does, I looked and that's what I got from what you sent in. In the future, it'd be better to present it in public at an SPI so everyone can see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I used the email given linked from the CU page, if it is not optimal, then that info should be changed.
And the country, even operating hours is not the most important stuff; the important points are the two last ones that I listed. I have many more diffs, if needed, but I thought 5 each would do, Huldra (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The real Italian sockmaster

The real sockmaster of the Italian IPs listed in my ill-conceived Apollo The Logician SPI has been found out to be Davide King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per this and this. Just FYI. No further action necessarily required. --Pudeo (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Priyanshu dtx

The reason why I wanted action taken on user: Priyanshu dtx is because she tends to disappear for three days and then come back with her vandalism again. She was here in the early morning hours of yesterday. Her statistics suggest she will be back on Tuesday. CLCStudent (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

don't really understand what your rationale is for removing a comma that provides clarity; sure the sentence isn't wrong, but adding a comma makes it less ambiguous. --SacredDragonX (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous about the statement. Your change is flat-out wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; the subjects are 'user talk pages' and 'user talk archives created by page move', not 'user talk pages created by page move', how is that not ambiguous --SacredDragonX (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
You correctly identify the subjects. No one could possibly interpret the first subject to be "user talk pages created by page move". For one thing, they never are. More important, changing the statement to "User talk pages, and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted;" fractures the brief sentence and makes it less comprehensible. And I'm through here. I've already spent too much time on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hlevy2 other accounts

Did you ever get a response from Hlevy to your query on their talkpage? I've just asked you this over there, but they reverted very quickly (though in a way that didn't notify me). GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Their only "response" was to remove the comment about their other account from their userpage. However, I also ran a check (on July 14) and found no evidence of socking at that time, so I decided not to push it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Another potential sock of Joker5122

Hello,

I think User:Deadshot5122 might be another sock of User:Joker5122. Can you help? Cardei012597 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steven0306/Archive

Hi Bbb23,
I noticed another possible sock puppet of the same editor again StevenZelasoTVFan0306 on A Million Little Things. Please see the history [30]. Can you take a look of that? — YoungForever(talk) 23:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tarantella33

I have reason to believe that User:Tarantella33 is a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppeteer User:Emilie2606. The account was created on July 26 (log), and on August 2 they made eleven edits before creating Michael Charles Rockefeller, which was originally created by Emilie2606. Over half of Tarantella33's contributions have been to that page (over 90% since becoming autoconfirmed). - ZLEA T\C 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The user also uploaded an image of Rockefeller, claiming that it is their own work (and that it was taken the previous day). Emilie2606 had also uploaded an image of Rockefeller and claimed that it was their own work, but it was later found that it was not free. - ZLEA T\C 16:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 Confirmed + Dionisiosss (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
They're at it again, this time User:Sakors (notice where the userpage redirects to) created Michael Charles Rockefeller and a userpage of a nonexistent user with the same name. Once again, a large number of their contributions are to those pages and they uploaded File:Michael Charles Rockefeller.jpg again claiming "own work". - ZLEA T\C 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That one plus two others.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I noticed that you marked these as suspected sockpuppets. Is this a mistake? - ZLEA T\C 23:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

More Bothiman crap

Hi B, if you get a sec, could you please look for other Bothiman accounts? I suspect Gazigor (I blocked them as ducky) and Damberbzn (still active, also ducky). It's the same lickspittle-style editing[31] at the Vijay awards page. Apparently every time he farts out an award, Bothiman is there to reverently catch it before it hits the dais. Thank you, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The two accounts are  Confirmed along with two others, one who hasn't edited, and one who edited the same article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Serious19

Serious19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user who has popped up on my radar via the edit filter. Claims they are a new account. I am dubious but who knows. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Are you claiming that I am lying ? -Serious19
I am saying that I am dubious. Not quite the same thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Surely you didn't mean to imply anything with that statement. Glad you made this topic, instead of actually editing things that are wrong. Have a nice day. -Serious19

UTRS appeal #26308

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #26308 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

eugene_m1999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Aug 21, 2019 13:42:34

Message: null

Notes:

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

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Alberto DeJesus

Hi, Bbb23 - I'm of the mind that article is a hoax and at the very least spam. I've checked the sources, the business address and the dates - it needs to be speedy deleted but I'm not sure what to use. The BLP is for a 20 yo - he has only been out of HS a few years, has supposedly attended 2 different universities and held down 3 different jobs long enough to get the funding & experience needed to run 4 different companies?? No way. The sources do not check-out, either. I looked up the address - 60 STATE STREET SUITE 700, BOSTON, MA 02109 - that's the address for The Hub Group. Also - look at the date of organization - 1 year ago. Now take a look at this timeline. No way!!! He was in HS in 2017. How is it even possible that he is bidding $36 million jobs?? Anybody can register for a license, and since he has just opened his doors (and probably hasn't done a single job) he has no complaints. His citations are to primary documents he has recently filed, the other sources are is high school stuff, other sources are Instagram and FB, the first is to Urban Dictionary, Boston Voyager Magazine is one of those you submit your article to and they publish it....Atsme Talk 📧 14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The article strikes me as inflated nonsense, but the only possible speedy tag I can see would be a g11, but it's borderline. I suggest you AfD it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Too late. An editor moved it to draft space. Frankly, I would prefer to see it deleted rather than remain in draft space, but it's the latest thing to move deletable articles created by disruptive users to draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Saw that. Did you see this and what Mer-C posted back in Feb?? Atsme Talk 📧 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I never see the point of notifying a blocked editor of these kinds of things, especially when you consider the nature of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
How do we go about getting that article deleted and salted so that this doesn't keep happening? Atsme Talk 📧 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone moves it back to main space, you can AfD it then if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
We typically MfD articles in Draft - which is what I was doing - Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion {{mfd}} per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion and then clicked on the red link to create the MFD. What did I get wrong? Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
You just slapped a tag on the article without following the procedures to create an actual discussion page. Onel5969 fixed it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey there speedy admin - I put the tag on it (per instructions at WP:MFD) and was in the process of creating the page by clicking on the red link (per instructions at WP:MFD) but you deleted it before I was able to add the first level section title and hit save. You reverted me at 11:04 - I created the red linked page at 11:06 within seconds of me adding the mfd template. It's all about timing and I just wasn't fast enough - it's an age thing. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 17:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No fair!

I got to be a punk and you took it away from me!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

But now I get to be part of a "Bunch of nerds lol loosers". :-p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Now? You already were! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The nerdve of some people!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yash Gawli

Abhinav Lalvani is another sock - see here. Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Disregard - steward has locked. Эlcobbola talk 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

128.77.80.116 / 76.64.129.163 / 77.18.55.28

Bbb23, you've previously blocked 128.77.80.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 76.64.129.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a couple of times as a CheckUser block. They're back from those blocks now, editing with the same kinds of issues, as 77.18.55.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 128.77.80.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I don't know what the CU issue is, but can I assume that they still shouldn't be editing like this? Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: If you believe their edits are disruptive, you should block them for as long as you deem appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done so. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
...and now Rydosyll (talk · contribs) has shown up; clearly the same editor, editing the same pages. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is my account. And I apologize for some of the earlier edits, I will not do it again. However, the other edits are not mine and have not been done by me. Sorry for the inconvenience. This is my account. Rydosyll (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "the other edits are not mine and have not been done by me? Of course they were done by you; it's the same articles and the same POV! Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It never ends...

Hey there, looking at this talk page, AlbinaJ[32], Fatima qandeel[33] and Mimi3895[34] have all raised talk page complaints about a character Vedika allegedly not being in the main cast of this TV show. OK, whatever. But the triplet of these requests stinks of socking. I recently had to block Diva166 so maybe they're related, but Diva never responded to talk page notices or did any chit-chatting, so I can't be sure it's her. Another potential is Dimpletisha, since MahimaSeth was recently implicated as her, but if Dimpletisha is editing, then it could also be KaranSharma0445, so, I'm not quite sure where to begin here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The three users who edited the Talk page are Red X Unrelated. I don't think there are any known sockmasters involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow! So a sudden explosion of insanely urgent complaints. Including a new one by Jualam. Weird. Thank you for looking, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Duck

Hello, Bbb23. Last month you blocked user Ahmad SCP – account created on 14 April 2019 – for being WP:NOTHERE. Among other disruptions, they were overwriting the Khokhar article with a non-notable BLP. It seems the same user has an older acount under the username Ahmed SCP – created on 10 Arpil 2019 – as that user is now overwriting the Khokhar article with the same BLP. He is also trying to hijack Ahmad Shah, which is a DAB page. BTW, I didn't file SPI as it seems like a clear case of WP:DUCK. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Master now blocked. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Some hours after your blocking of the master, a new user with a similar name registered. But they haven't shown any signs to make them a suspect yet, although they did edit one of the articles edited by the master. BTW, their user page is unusual, as it seems like an unattributed copy of WP:PP. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
They did the expected thing today. So I've filed an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed SCP - NitinMlk (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Admitted sock

Saw this at the WP:Teahouse: Special:Diff/912031748. Pierrot2007 has openly admitted to being the same person as DriverSafety. Since this is a pretty open-and-shut case, it seemed more efficient to bring this to and admin directly instead of adding the overhead of SPI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It's too weird and should be analyzed at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pierrot2007. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I need to temporarily undelete a page recently deleted

Hi, I need to make a hardcopy of the following page that was deleted today, a short while ago.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Ajmcquilkin/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload

Can you please grant me access for an hour? I need to print this out tonight for a school assignment.

Take care, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmcquilkin (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine what kind of "school assignment" would ask you to use Wikipedia to, at best, create a prank out of the Robert Frost article or, at worst and more aptly, vandalize it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I am a school trip leader (Dartmouth College, NH USA) and the school assignment I am referring to is meant to generate interest in a local (minor) celebrity Robert Frost. I had not intended to violate any Wiki code of conduct since I had assumed (incorrectly obviously) that working in a "sandbox" area would not be publicly accessible or otherwise interfere with legitimate Rober Frost content. I apologize but in any case I still need to, at least, generate a hardcopy of that "prank" page. I understand and appreciate your reticence to reactivate the page since evidently the sandbox area is public. Would it instead be possible for you to send me a .pdf copy so I can then print it? Take care, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmcquilkin (talk • contribs) 13:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How would creating a sandbox on Wikipedia "generate interest" in this other Robert Frost, and why did you piggy-back off the real Robert Frost, including his pictures, etc., when creating the sandbox? In any event, I don't e-mail users.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The "piggy-backing" was an effort to make the material seem as reputable as possible and this evidently created problems with the legitimate content and I do apologize. As is probably obvious by now I am not a sophisticated wiki user. To answer the question about what point does this serve I suggest you think back to your school days where sometimes an instructor's most effective approach is to be shocking and provocative. I am leading a student trip, starting tomorrow, where I was planning to present this as a shocking introduction to the author. Again, I spent almost a day on this and simply need a way to produce a hardcopy. Is there a low impact way to make this happen even without having to resort to email? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmcquilkin (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: You're more in touch with universities, professors, and students than I am. I'm unwilling to do what Adam requests. Such a printout would be demeaning to Frost, and although I can't stop people from creating article forgeries on their own, I don't see why I or Wikipedia should facilitate it. Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I see no educational value in this assignment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I understand and respect you taking a stand on principle and refuse to help. I guess I will have to spend today recreating this. Can you at least instruct me how to do this without affecting the legitimate data and risk having it deleted? I simply need to make a hardcopy. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmcquilkin (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

We do allow Wikipedia resources to be used for class assignments, but normally they are sanctioned by Wikipdia in advance, rather than ad hoc. Here's what you do. Recreate your sandbox. In it put an article about your Robert Frost. Use absolutely nothing from the Frost article. After you are done, print it. Then you can either tag your sandbox with WP:CSD#U1, or, if you can't figure out to do that, post here again saying you're done and I'll redelete it. BTW, as long as you're here for a bit, learn how to WP:INDENT in discussions (this one) and WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ajmcquilkin, I am a teacher too, and I suppose we should be happy you weren't trying to be "shocking and provocative" by simply vandalizing the article. What I see here is the use of Wikipedia for a non-Wikipedia purpose, which in some cases is fine if there is a Wikipedia context: if you were teaching a Wikipedia class, for instance. In this case, you copied an article (without attribution) and then inserted a hoax into it--that ashes stuff. I don't like it at all.

    Bbb, I don't really know what to say. If teacher here (I don't know what "lead a school trip" means here or what it has to do with anything) had couched this in the context of a clear educational assignment, and this was something meant to prove, for instance, how to make something on the internet look believable (a section on rhetoric and persuasion), I might could go along with it--but lacking all that, I am aligning myself with the curmudgeons. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Ajmcquilkin, after Drmies's comments and my own reconsideration, I withdraw permission for you to recreate the "article" per the steps I outlined above. Bottom line: there's nothing left for you to do here. Enjoy your trip tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Highly suspicious thanks

Back on March 24 I happened to click onto Wikipedia moments after the main page was vandalized and I reverted the vandalism. This produced a few "thanks." No big deal but six months later I am still getting the occasional "thanks" for that edit. The latest being from Thaomat999 thao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now rather suspicious I took a look at this editor and found only a single edit that was naked vandalism. I have blocked them. However I suspect that quite a few of the others are probably the same editor. The next to last to send me thanks was Jasdeep Singh gill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately my notices log only goes back so far. But I suspect that the majority of those giving thanks for my edit after the first few days are an LTA. Not sure what if anything you can do, but I will be looking closely at any future such "thank you" notices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

why you delete the podcast link??

for 2nd times, why adding a podcast which is professionally discuss about a subject which is fit to it and just read a full version of its context, is forbidden and deserve to add a only warning in my discus page? with no refer to page ! Book of Dede Korkut , give me a reference. what policy allow you to call people spammer? old ver.

‍‍‍Rtirenji (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Hi I and one of the 2 other editors who !voted delete in 3 afd articles created by the same editor are being targeted by retaliation AFD nominations. The nominator has been inactive for a year and a half and has suddenly popped up to nominate articles created by the editors involved.

They have nominated here for user User:Epinoia

For me here

Just as a reminder the article creator also opened up an SPI case that you threw out against User:HighKing and myself. The article creator immediately !voted delete in the first 2 discussions. I suspect this is meatpuppetry and not sockpuppetry but I may be wrong so I wanted your advice as to whether to open an SPI or an ANI so that this stops. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs · count) and Riazul Islam BD (talk · contribs · count) as  Confirmed. Your presentation above, though, made it harder. Please don't make me dig to figure out exactly which users you're talking about. List the users you suspect and then explain your reasoning referring to each by name in your explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I deliberately avoided tagging them as I have been advised in the past [35] not to notify potential sockpuppets. Is there a way of linking to their accounts without sending a notification? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
First, let's get our terminology straight: there's a difference between tagging and notifying. Tagging means editing their userpages, which you shouldn't do for any reason. Notifying is usually meant in the context of filing an SPI report and notifying the suspected sock of the report. That's optional and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Here you are not "notifying" them per se. You are identifying them for me. I don't really care if they get pinged because of it, but you can avoid that by using "noping" or even more easily by putting their usernames here without a link. What you did here is the equivalent of filing a report at SPI without listing the suspected users.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
OK fair enough but what I was trying to do was to get some friendly advice from an admin that is an expert in SPI so as not to make a faux pas and open an unnecessary SPI. I'll be more careful next time. Sorry to have bothered you. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You didn't bother me; you correctly spotted possible socking. But from your last response it doesn't sound like you understood anything I said about how you reported it. I never said you should have opened an SPI. I don't think it would have been wrong to do so, but bringing it directly to me wasn't wrong, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
OK I get it, it must be the heat here in Paris slowing down the synapses! Thanks for you time.--Dom from Paris (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I have zero sympathy. Although I'm not fond of heat and I'm not that fond of major cities in general (I prefer the countryside), I still think of Paris as being one of the more glorious cities in the world. Say hi to best pals Trump and Macron, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

they're down in Biarritz working on their tans and manly handshakes but I'll see what I can do, I know Macron's press secretary so I may be able to work it! Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ashiq Hussain

Can you please stop reverting my edits, I am trying to help Wikipedia and improving this page. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.27.10 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Archived section with content deleted prior to archiving

Looking at Talk:Gary Null/Archive 2#Deletion of Biography of Gary Null, it's difficult to find what was "removed" (and what editor was blocked, as mentioned in the remaining visible content) because that all is part of the article-history at Talk:Gary Null prior to archiving. Would it be useful to have your comment include a diff of the removal? I didn't want to change your edit, or edit an archive related to an edit of yours on a page you might not be watching. Per WP:AN#Gary Null, might be useful for others to see this sort of history. DMacks (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. As far as I can tell, I removed the comment made by the lawyer, and NeilN blocked them for legal threats. I don't see any rev/del'd edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The archive says "removed" (it was simply edited out, not revdel'ed or anything more techincal), but it's difficult to find the actual removed content--it's not in the history of the page that says "removed" because the archiving caused a hist-split. Instead, one has to know that it was removed prior to archiving, and therefore to look in the original page for the removed content. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a normal artifact of archiving that different threads get archived to different archives. The Talk page revision history itself is very easy to follow, and I don't believe in editing archives except in extraordinary circumstances. I guess I don't see this being as big a deal as you do. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that's why I asked first. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts

These are duplicate accounts of the same person: Mubu4editing and Mubu4writing. Some months ago this guy came with Mubthasim and Alan_wikieditor. 2405:204:D285:E68A:41CD:2E65:D4C5:9CD2 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your great work and contribution. Roshanshaik5555 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible vandal

Please look at the range 2001:4898:80E8:F:50EF:14BB:46D4:837B/60 as a possible vandal. Examples of 2001:4898:80E8:0 and 2001:4898:80E8:F both damaged 143 (number) in rapid succession, and it seems that you considered another one in the range damaged your talk page. A quick scan showed only one possible good edit in the last week, other than a discussion on ANI where various IP6's in the range reverted edits to WP:ANI because they couldn't read them (at least according to the edit comments). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, at least one of the comments on ANI (from :8, still in archive 1017) appears to be relevant. Perhaps not a vandal. Sorry to have bothered you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Investigation

Can you respond to another investigation that I have reopened. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819. Same thing: Please do not delete the articles of the sockpuppets Thank you! Triila73 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Tubslubeamorepersempre

You blocked the above user ("Tubs") and about three dozen sockpuppets a few days ago. Many of Tub's editing interests, as demonstrated by the edits of the main accounts and the sockpuppet accounts, overlap with User:Hometech. I've requested two sockpuppet investigations concerning Hometech before, both of which ended in you confirming my suspicions. The editing interests that Tubs and Hometech share include Islamic history, Islamic economics, and South Asia. The user talk page histories show a consistent pattern of other users identifying misrepresented sources, a complaint that Hometech and his sockpuppets frequently received. Hometech and his sockpuppets have edited many of the same articles as Tubs and Tubs' socks including: History of Islamic economics, Jizya, Spread of Islam, and even quite obscure/specialized articles such as Fatwa Alamgiri. I'm not sure if you can see Hometech's IP address anymore but some of them are listed here if you'd like to get an idea of which physical locations he tends to edit from. Buddytula (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The two cases are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick thanks

For moving my comments on the BLP noticeboard, I neglected to look for a pre-existing section. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Charles Rockfeller sock (again)

A "new" user has created the Michael Charles Rockfeller article. Once again, a majority of this user's edits are to this page. - ZLEA T\C 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Jaya182 is Red X Unrelated to Emilie2606 (talk · contribs · count) but is blocked as a sock of Chahar007 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you very much for your swift reaction when you dealed with the SPI case i opened. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

SPI question about tags

Bbb23, this is a pure curiosity question. What are the SPI tags you mentioned here [[36]]? Springee (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Those are the sock templates that we often put on userpages once a determination has been made that they are a sock, the ones that say suspected, "is", or confirmed. Often, when we have an LTA like HughD, we stop tagging per WP:DENY.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Playballz

Thank you for the prompt and Herculean effort at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Playballz. I note that you blocked the accounts which I hadn't already blocked "without tags".

Does that mean that I should go and add sockpuppet templates to the user pages of the CU confirmed accounts, or does it mean we won't be adding any templates and my work on the case is done?

If the former, should we consider Playballz (unblocked, stale) to be the master of group 1, and how would I tag group 2 to point to the investigation (given that I couldn't get the spipage parameter to work)?

If we're done, then I'm out of here. Thanks again for your work, I for one really appreciate it. --kingboyk (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're persuaded that the Group 1 accounts are operated by the same person as the stale master, then those accounts can be tagged as suspected. There's also a more complicated tag that marks them as suspected but confirmed to each other: Sir Sputnik? As for the Group 2 accounts, either they should be left untagged or a new case should be created for just those three. Normally, a clerk looks at these things, but, as the person most familiar with this, you could either make a decision and ask a clerk to implement it, or do it yourself...as long as you don't screw up. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingboyk: For the more complex tags (I'm assuming this is why I was pinged), have a look at User:Sok Chea and User:Mr Sokchea as some examples of how these work. If you feel comfortable handling the tagging yourself, by all means, go for it. If you prefer a clerk handle it, let me know and I'll have a closer look. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Sputnik: Thank you. I believe that you were pinged in the hope that you'd elaborate on the more complicated templates, yes. However, as you've offered, I'd like to take you up on your offer to look at the case please. As I'm under strict instructions not to screw up I think this time it would benefit me to watch what the expert does. I'll have a go next time!
I've just popped over to the case and given my feedback as Bbb23 suggested I should ahead of a clerk inspecting it. I'm honestly not sure if the feedback should be where I left it, or if I should post as a patrolling admin. If the posting is in the wrong place please move it, and if it's not helpful, please just remove it. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Archive box and TOC

On my laptop, with the browser maximised, I have to scroll down a full page past your archive box in order to get to the TOC.

I've put __TOC__ onto a new line immediately after the archive box on my talk page, and I get the TOC and archive box next to each other. The same appears to work on your page when I tried it in Preview. It adjusts quite well if I make my browser window much smaller so I guess it would be OK on very small screens too (e.g. phones) but I can't vouch for that. --kingboyk (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Divulgacion-cientifica

Hi Bbb23. Just a courtesy note to let you know I have unblocked this user, per the undertakings in their unblock appeal. Let me know if you have any concerns. All the best, Yunshui 雲水 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no problems with the unblock, but I would have preferred that you ask me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Charles Rockefeller

I noticed that you reverted an IP's removal of the orphan template on the Michael Charles Rockefeller. One article (Salamis Island) currently links to the page, and according to WP:Orphan#Criteria, the orphan template should only be used if no articles link to the page. What is your reason for reverting these edits? - ZLEA T\C 17:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see it. In any case, it no longer links to the page because I removed the edits by the IPs adding Rockefeller to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

you get the best vandalism ...

this section header had me laughing my damn fool head off. — Ched (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yuk, you can have it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

About refactoring

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&action=edit&section=23 Please don't do that. You're an admin; you know better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not refactor your post; I removed it. As I said in my edit summary, it's unhelpful and, more important, it does not correctly describe what happened. There was no block evasion by these three accounts. I blocked them all at the same time. I also found your post to Cyphoidbomb's Talk page about the same subject obnoxious, but it wasn't revertable and Cyphoidbomb is more than capable of handling his own Talk page. I'm not going to revert your post to the sock's Talk page because I don't want to put myself in a position where I feel forced to block you for disruption if you edit-war over it. I strongly urge you, though, to self-revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, we have different definitions of what refactoring is. I am presuming you did so under the "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material" caveat. In that case, you should feel entirely free to point out where my post fit that criteria. Are you suggesting that the blocked user wasn't using other accounts to ask questions of others? That the blocked user wasn't continuing to edit with their other accounts? If i am wrong, I'm willing to have my mind changed.
And, as for the bit about blocking me for "edit-warring", I'd point out that dropping threats like that tend to boomerang back on their issuer. I can't similarly threaten you with a block, so you doing so can easily be seen as an abuse of your privilege. Don't do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you be more specific by username? Which blocked account was "continuing to edit with their other accounts"?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, your comment was unhelpful and looked like gravedancing to me. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that was not my intent. The guy was editing through socks and then asking for chances at the same time his block was being reviewed. It seemed like the person wasn't getting the point. I was just passing through and offered some input. I wasn't laughing at the guy; I was honestly concerned that he didn't see what he was doing wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you restore "Susan Dougan", as the head-of-state of a sovereign nation?

Hello Bbb23!

I'm Paintspot, a user who enjoys helping with articles on state leaders and heads-of-state/government! Because the article "Susan Dougan" was created by a sockpuppeter account evading a ban (don't know who this was, but apparently this was the case), you deleted the page in accordance with WP:CSD#G5.

However, this article is genuinely a helpful one that should exist, as (other than the nation's monarchy under Elizabeth II) Dougan is the Governor-General (the effective head-of-state) of a sovereign nation (the Caribbean country of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). It's the only article of a current state leader that is missing from our otherwise-complete encyclopedia. The page would need to be recreated eventually, but to facilitate this / make things easier, would you mind undeleting it? Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The deleted article is 2 sentences long. You have actually written as much on the subject on this page as was in the article. Had you directed this into article space, you would have been as far along as the deleted article was, already. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've restored it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

SPI

May I ask why did you close this without giving any reason for it other than "it is a complete mess"? Yeah, the behaviour of sockpuppets may be messy (specially considering, seeing evidence, that there are two actual SPIs (1 2) that could refer to the same person all along) but I'd think some attention should be put, specially when such an amount of evidence exists. If unwilling to address this, may I ask you to brief be about how can I ask for a second opinion on this? Thank you. Impru20talk 14:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

In point of fact, you filed a report trying to connect the user to three different masters, one of whom has already been rejected. It's a scattershot approach that isn't going anywhere. I almost reverted your edits, but I reluctantly decided to let it archive. There's no point to your asking for a second opinion, even if there were a vehicle for doing so, which there is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, this has nothing to do with the "complete mess" argument you used to close the SPI. You basically acknowledge you closed it on your own volition without even caring to take a look at the evidence. Further, suggesting that you were about to "revert me" and that I should be somehow grateful you reluctantly didn't is way beyond what should be done in those cases, as revertion should have been done only if my report had been vandalic, which it obviously wasn't. I don't understand why are you using such a harsh tone here.
Indeed, I saw it was you who rejected a previous case on 22:30, 23 July 2019; this is, when the Lo meiin account's edit count was at just 10, had been recently created earlier on that same day and there was very little evidence on it. Further edits have been conducted from that account (and provided as evidence) that show that there are stronger signs of sockpuppetry as of currently. And, just as a matter of fact, I'm entirely unrelated to the previous case, so I can't understand how I can't reasonably think that, even if that was closed back then, there couldn't be new evidence now, provided from a different user, so as to raise the issue again. Errors do exist.
On the "trying to connect the user to three different masters", is this impossible? Behaviour in all of the cases is so similar so as to raice concerns on the same person handling all five accounts, and previous SPIs could have been malformed as a result of users unaware of the other accounts reporting on separate sockmasters. This is why I provided evidence on all of the cases and requested a CheckUser to help on it. If they are unrelated, then that's ok but you did not even address this. Impru20talk 15:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the guy himself has acknowledged he is indeed a duck sockpuppet. But surely he can't be, because the case was rejected previously, right? Impru20talk 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hi there, Atheera raj illalai has been ranting on talk pages about some anti-Hindu conspiracy. He's admitted to having had another account before, but his answer, "I tried srk", was vague. (SRK typically means Shah Rukh Khan, but I don't know that this is helpful in any way.) He's currently blocked for incivility, but he's taken to a bit of trolling and I'm skeptical that he's here for any good purpose. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivakarthy. It would be great if you could do the requested behavioral analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
On it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Sylvia Klimaki

Hello! Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm sorry I first deleted the content but first I tried to remove unencyclopedic content (actually the whole article which is self-advertizing) and then I realized that all that the person and all that's left is still unnotable. Dimboukas (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

SPIs for the record?

I'm never really sure if opening cases like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schuberte is actually useful. Is getting this recorded a good thing, or am I just creating extra work for the CU folks? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a problem filing it for the record, but there was no point in requesting a CU. Best is to file it, say it's for the record, and close it yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Quebec Senior Football League

Greetings, I would like to know why doesn't the CSD tag doesn't apply to the article as the criteria explicitly states that "This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". I agree that the previous CSD tag was done without any insight to the criteria for CSD deletion but this was done after going through the CSD tagging article in Wikipedia and also would like to what's wrong with my tag as to get the "abusive tag" response. Beastranger (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is clearly identified. Stop tagging articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Morgan

Why was user Mohammad Morgan undefinitely blocked? His contributions about contents were simply excellent. --Folengo (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A sock is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
With all the respect due, I don't agree. This is an incommensurable loss to same pages/projects. --Folengo (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

UPE?

Maybe you can help me. I think I've found someone who's an UPE I sent an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org but didnt hear back from anyone I privately contacted a number of functionaries/admins but most didn't reply and those that did couldn't help. Obviously I don't want to smear someone willy-nilly. What's the best way to proceed? PetaJ89 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed this or ignored it on purpose. In any event, whats the best way to proceed with this? PetaJ89 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

TryDeletingMe

DictorialRed made a few edits here and there on articles not related with Serbia, and then stayed off Wiki. The same method was used by ThreatMatrix, a sock of TryDeletingMe. The account became active again in August, some two hours after TM was blocked. Like TDM and TM, DR has a rather bizarre focus on crimes committed against Serbs and on obscuring the collaboration of Serbian nationalist Chetniks with Nazi and Communist forces. Since the beginning DR was able to use the ref templates and other templates as an experienced editor, and the very first edit was the addition of a link to World War II persecution of Serbs [37]. TDM and TM continously placed on various articles links to that particular article. Since you have CU rights, can you check the account when time permits? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to reopen the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I asked you because I am on the phone and opening a SPI page is not easy. Anyways, I will file a SPI report soon. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused

How can a user accidentally create a page that makes edits for months? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I get your point about adding it as a section and not as a page template.
What I didn't understand was why you were telling me to never, ever use it. I ask that, if I don't seem to be understanding what you are telling me, try a different way. For instance, in our recent discussion about TyMega, while I didn't understand your advice, I don't think you understood why I added the welcome template. I was doing it because another user had suggested that the user "never" responds to inquiries or posts in article talk. Rather than presume the person was tendentious, I considered the possibility that they never learned that this was part of the process. Maybe if they knew that this was part of it, they would act differently, and work more collaboratively. It wasn't meant as WP:DTR; I watchlisted the user's page and pinged them from the article in question, so eager I was to get their input. I wasn't going to assume that they were a bad egg. They have since been indef-blocked, which is an opportunity lost, imo. It's totally true that some cannot be saved (the perpetual BKFIP springs to mind), but most can be.
Maybe don't give up on me, Bbb23. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference accounts

Hello.
Are you sure that relied on correct reference accounts when performed the June 12 check? To me, “N.....##3‎‎” refers to a person whom I described in earlier section… that is, I’m sure accs and ranges mentioned by me are the same (one) person, but I did not look to that two accounts deemed “original” for this farm, and hence may sensu stricto mistake, referring by that nick to another (related) LTA which the Wikimedia erroneously took for original N.....##3. I don’t know how many people are Thita’s and Sukavich’s fans really. TL;DR: I can assert that Y......i is identical to certain LTA familiar to me, not more but not less. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent ban of User:Sbourke206

I noticed you went ahead and banned this user, they have however made several other accounts prior to the ban. I'm not sure if you would like to ban all of them as well. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Al Seckel

Hi Bbb23. So I waited three weeks before editing Al Seckel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. My comments on the article's talk page during that time were mostly ignored. I wouldn't be surprise if more disputes follow given the continuing interest in Seckel is because of his relationship with Jeffery Epstein. Any advice would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert users at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Not the answer I expected. I don't have a good feel for how 3RR applies any more, and obviously my previous understanding was wrong. I've been trying new approaches while observing and working with other experienced editors in similar situations. I modified my editnotice to let editors know that I'm open to holding myself to 1RR if they feel it will help a situation. I hope that's enough. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
When you've been blocked for edit-warring on a particular article, you always have to be a little more careful about your future edits at the same article as any reverts you make will be scrutinized more carefully, even if under normal circumstances it would not be considered edit-warring. You kept your promise and you sound like you're being more cautious, which is great, but you asked for my advice. If you meant advice about the contents of the article, I can't comment on that if I want to remain uninvolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

User:ShappeAli

Hi, his appeal still hasn't been reviewed since July. The editor Roy 17 who reported copyvio continues to be in trouble for copyvio of his own uploads at commons and was reported by Andy Dingley for making spurious deletion nominations as shown on his commons talkpage here. The deletion discipussion on the images is stalled here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Understanding why I was blocked

You blocked me for BLP when I gave you an explanation. You erased my explanation and gave me a further warning. Can you please go to my page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Vikhtrrez and see the stuff that I wrote and also what you deleted in the history. I'd like to understand your reasoning so that I can avoid this in the future. I have read the BLP guidelines and I honestly do not see how I contravened those guidelines. Can you please tell me what I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikhtrrez (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_49&oldid=1079485092"