User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Making a new account?

You explained to me saying that I had made a new account, Spicyeater 2005, as an alternate account of mine and that I was retiring my current account. But that plan failed. So I decided to go Cheers! CentralTime301 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded on your Talk page. Please keep the conversation in one place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant to go Cheers! Cheers! CentralTime301 22:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! Cheers! CentralTime301 14:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A pie and a WikiPeace for you!

Anyway, I am sorry I have been reporting you on WP:ANI, but let's (separately) make things better, with this pie. Cheers! CentralTime301 14:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! CentralTime301 has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

It's me! It's me!

This week has been nutso work-wise, but I have carved out just enough time to ask a favour! I see you've been involved in this SPI. Slogging through some old sandboxes (don't ask!) I came across these contribs where an editor is repeatedly recreating the same cluster of "Ajay Kumar Pande" articles under myriad title variations as the user your blocked here. I could poke around the logs but thought you may be more familiar with their handiwork.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: the user appears to be  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You're so efficient! I would give you a barnstar but I it looks like you've been spammed with your quota for the day.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your offer is way better than the ones I've been given.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel a cold bitter wind from across the waters; I believe it's the physical manifestation of the vacuum forming as your patience drops into negative values.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Rakurai64

Hi Bbb23. When you get a minute... Highly suspicious editing for a new user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Already checked by two CUs - no need for me to throw my hat in the ring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I know my suspicions were not unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Spicyeater2005 indefinitely?

Bbb23, if you blocked Spicyeater2005 for indefinite, I have one condition to say for myself: no make multiple accounts ever again. Sorry. Cheers! CentralTime301 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Evrdkmkm

I have blocked this editor for socking with user:Delprudensio. It looks pretty ducky to me. But Evrdkmkm is appealing their block and denying any socking. Out of an abundance of caution, when you have a few minutes could you have a look? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded at Evrdkmkm's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Kius18

Hi, Bbb23,

I stumbled onto some errant nonsense added by Kius18 whom you blocked (thanks!) as a sockpuppet of Yunongdog.

What concerns me is the possibility that this might be an AI adversary. Some of their other additions look plausible until one reads them critically in context. Do you encounter this kind of thing often? Could you point me to any discussion where they came to your attention? (I tried searching without luck so far.)

Best wishes, Pelagic (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "AI adversary", and I suspect if you explain it, I won't be able to help you, but you're welcome to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the jargon, Bbb23. The socks' edits look like they were done by a bot or some kind of automated process. It's the first time I've seen anything like it on WP, but then I'm not active in the anti-vandal area so maybe it's common. That's why I was curious to learn more. I'm feeling a bit paranoid now: what's the chance that the people responsible are monitoring our reactions to fine-tune their methods? *Steps away to look for tin-foil hat.* Jokes aside, the same does apply to human socks and LTAs: to what extent should we openly discuss how their behaviour and methods tipped us off, if that information helps them to evade us next time? Pelagic (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

All I can tell you is I didn't come upon the farm because I noticed bot-like editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thankyou for your responses, and extra thanks for laundering all the detritus left by the dirty socks. I've applied a few spots of stain remover here and there. If you want to remove or redact this conversation because Reasons, then I won't be offended. Keep up the great work! —Pelagic (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockdrawer Hlevy2

Not sure what's up with this one. They !voted at EF's RfA, then I saw you'd asked them in July to publicly disclose and link their main account. I see no disclosure, and no link. Kudpung had also asked them in 2016, also with no response. It looks to me like they have multiple SPA accounts, working on the same article. I pinged you at their talk: User talk:Hlevy2#Other account? Since they haven't responded to these requests by multiple admins, should they even be voting in RfA's etc? I think this is a sockdrawer, so... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As a CU, there's nothing I'm going to do about it. All the users you listed on Hlevy2's Talk page are very stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Realized the staleness after I posted. Still, you tried talking to them, so pinging seemed appropriate. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

One sock just re-appeared after 4 years to answer a question directed at the main account. Oh. Looking at EIT, I now think this Hlevey2 drawer is a subset of indeffed sockmaster Racepacket. I'll look into it more tomorrow. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, after checking, Hlevy2 is in precisely the same place as Racepacket.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Please undo your block and make it a normal block for socking. You cannot make a checkuser block; only checkusers can. As an aside, Berean Hunter did not confirm the user, he confirmed only the location.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Devosdevine is not Hlevy2 at all. She is in a different place (confirmed) and it isn't hard to figure out who she is and why she would edit that article. I really don't think she has anything to do with Hlevy2. I think your use of the {{user5}} template pinged her and she was emailed a notice which is why she responded there. She should be unblocked and let her know that a mistake was made. I'll send Bbb23 details that I can't reveal here. I used the {{user5}} on you above...did it ping you? You may want to use the {{checkuser}} template from now on instead of the user5 template since it doesn't ping.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it pings. On it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Bbb, can you check something real quick? I'm sending you an email. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm it got a bit quieter, it seems. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good because I'm about to sit down for dinner and am really too tired to do anything difficult.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• You and your time zone. Anyway, have a look at that range when you're in between main course and dessert, please. One IP blocked, likely proxy, lots of accounts including a few that were already blocked for various reasons. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the globally locked accounts, looks like one of those LTAs for which I never can tell who the master is. Maybe ST47 knows more. He blocked one. Way too busy a range. In any event, this reply is the best you're gonna get on this one. I only did this much because dinner is "delayed": Thai barbecue chicken with brown rice and coconut milk sauce, accompanied by a lovely Chinese cucumber salad. Who needs dessert?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Motizun

Hi, I'm looking for more background on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Winterysteppe. Where can I find more on the connection between Motizun and Winterysteppe? (Didn't see in SPI.) czar 01:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Socks are blocked all the time outside of SPI, especially with LTAs like Winterysteppe. I don't see why it should be of any interest to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

? I'm simply looking for background on this block and global lock as I haven't found where it would be documented. Motizun, in their unblock request, claims to be someone else who hasn't been linked to Winterysteppe. If the claim is true, it would be odd for the other user to not be linked to Winterysteppe too. I can't assess the pattern if I don't know what it is. czar 03:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe I found Motizun while patrolling CSD (Winterysteppe created lots of crappy and some hoax articles). My check confirmed that the account was operated by Winterysteppe. Motizun's claim that he is a sock of CA! is simply a lie. Putting aside the obvious behavioral differences, CA! was created years before W. It is almost impossible that the account would not have been discovered. I'm still not clear why you want to "assess the pattern", but this is a dead end issue as far as I'm concerned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a lot of overlap while refunding some G13s for CA so wanted to ask. Also Motizun was active May–July, which coincides with CA's break (April–October). Anyway, I've asked CA about it on my talk page and knowing him to be above board, dead end issue sounds right. Thanks again. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Guidance on Harshil169

I came across your profile in reviewing the talk page history for the BAPS article and wanted to seek your guidance as an admin. User:Harshil169 has repeatedly made it difficult for me and other users to collaborate on articles.

In originally authoring Criticism of Swaminarayan Sect, he disregarded WP:POVFORK (here) and ignored the consensus of multiple editors (here) by reverting any changes made to the page (1, 2, 3), initiating a sockpuppeting investigation against me which was proven false (here), seeking input from the NPOV Noticeboard without notifying any of the other editors (here), and ultimately requesting a speedy deletion of the article which was denied (here). Throughout this process, he resorted to uncivil language (1, 2).

After this page was merged with the Swaminarayan Sampraday, he had reposted some of the same material that was initially removed by consensus for lack of encyclopedic value. I removed it (here), but he reverted with an ad hominem attack (here), further uncivil language (here), and a warning to topic ban me (here).

Though his user page features a ‘New User’ userbox, he has been around since 2015 and accumulated 3,000 edits as well as warnings from multiple users about his behavior on other pages (here). His page history will reveal more. I have tried to maintain good faith in this editor's intentions, but this history of contention warrants I seek your guidance on how best to proceed.

Thank you for your time, and if you have any questions or need additional details, please feel free to ask. Moksha88 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only thing I can recommend is to take the editor to ANI if you think there is sufficient evidence for sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Moksha88 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding User:Flapjacktastic and your reply, why do you see no reason to comment? If it's a too long story, are there any links I can follow? Cheers UaMaol (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Uamaol: CheckUser blocks are made on the basis of evidence which must be kept confidential. Sometimes some of the evidence can be publicly revealed, but often none of it can. If a CU declines to comment on a CU block, mere mortals such as you and me just have to assume they have good reasons (which I'm confident they usually do). JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I wanted to get in touch to see why this page was deleted? "Inspiring Ilango" if there was a problem with the content, you could have pointed it our and i could have fixed it. Is there a way I can recover the contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vb123123 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you like, I can move the article to draft space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Fairies and pixies

I really like your comment here. It also reminds me of the time, many years ago, when it was common practice for CheckUsers reporting CU results in SPIs to attach " CheckUser is not magic pixie dust" to their reports, to remind everyone that CU evidence is not definitive, and is just one more piece of evidence to be considered along with behavioural evidence. At some time or other the practice of doing that faded out. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of C.S. O'Cinneide

You have marked my page C.S. O'Cinneide for speedy deletion. I could not find the button for contesting speedy deletion as outlined, so I am writing you here to contest the deletion. I believe the page does meet the criteria for a person of note. This author has been nominated for a literary award (Goodreads Choice Awards) and has been featured in major newspapers (https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2019/07/11/ghost-tales-haunt-the-pages-of-the-summers-best-horror-books.html) and on the CBC news website (https://www.cbc.ca/books/margaret-atwood-louise-penny-s-k-ali-malcolm-gladwell-among-goodreads-2019-best-book-nominees-1.5357631). Her novel, Petra's Ghost has been featured has one of the most anticipated horror novels of 2019 and numerous book lists (see references in article). She has a large body of published works as outlined in the bibliography. Please tell me what further information or references I may provide to support the non-deletion of this page. Many thanks MarcusK0100MarcusK0100 (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a draft on an article which was previously deleted and tagged into wp:G5, is that Ok?

Hello there, User:Bbb23 I am basically Nowadays trying to get such wikipedia articles sorted which somehow got deleted and failed to show authenticity without the lack of proper research etc. one such case is Draft:Julian Jewel Jeyaraj, I feel. it does have articles published on reliable sources like Hindustan Times, Entrepreneur (magazine) and CNN-News18 which makes it eligible to pass wp:gng and wp:rs, so I felt like reconstructing its draft version (since I had created the AI research which was created by him) i feel like this dude also passes the notability guideline. so I made a draft on this person which was previously deleted and tagged into wp:G5, is that Ok? and also can u please check the draft version, if its reliable enough to have a stand-alone article!? Bollymine (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Socking

I have reason to believe that User:CD1965 is a sockpuppet of User:AH999 I presented evidence at the relevant spi but still waiting for now. 86.174.219.167 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock of Flooded with them hundreds

Hi Bbb23, I could be wrong on this but the use of Twinkle, some of the topics they've edited and the overall general editing pattern of the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost strikes me as a possibility of them being FWTH. Plus the username seems like something they might call themselves. They've also just requested rollback rights, which is something FWTH has done before on alternate accounts. If you get time, would you be able to run a CU on them? Although I'm thinking that if you've done a general CU on any accounts FWTH might have been using since July, then this would probably have come up if they were. Just wanting to be sure, anyway. Thanks. @Ad Orientem: for a second opinion. Ss112 07:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I need help regarding continuous harassment.

I am fed up of harassment and attacking by user:Harshil169. He keeps targetting me like some nemesis and always talks in hostile manner. Let me give you a little bit of context.

I was a casual editor. I edit this and that just that. Then this person whom I accused made a wiki page of temple vandalism and tried giving it communal view. I was not very expireanced I removed all his content which seem inappropriate to me. I saw about this temple page on a tweet which was posted by someone else. Then I checked his tweets. He asked for other same ideology people saying"Wikipedia is filled with Mullahs(muslims) and Christians. And we need to take over it." As someone else put that temple page into deletion somehow I was involved with edit war in it about which I had no Idea.

Then I learned, we had a hot debate. He kept tweeting calling for help with his religious fellows. Some already editors and some made new accounts to help him and all of them jumped into the debate with a lot of Islamophobic hate. I tried debate with them in as civilsed manner as I can. A sock puppet investigation was then opened against the accused(probably by me but I dont remember). And at last after a week long debate the editors decided to scrap that wiki page. This case closed.

Then he wrote article on J&K reorganisation bill again with Islamophobic content. I put that article under deletion as it controversial and too soon topic to be made into article. The editors said this article has a significance and I was arguing to put this under a sub section of other article and merge. But then I understand , the Islamophobic contemt was removed and that page was allowed to settle.But I never argued with amyone of them or act hostile.

Then I left editing for some months. But keep doing a bit editing grammer mistakes and all that occasionally.

Then after some time. I again stuck with one of the edits of this person. And I saw he keep silently editing all the liberal wiki pages and adding a little bit defamatory contents in them.We got into argue but still I was as humble as I can. May be I got a little out of league sometimes but still I didn't said anything. Their was no private attack against him as I was calling out what he is doing. But he is like too stubborn to listen anything from me. He made another defamator article for Prophet Jesus. Again arguement and he was still not ready to listen. As I didn't knew most of the rules I remove them as I didn't knew about 3 R rule. So I revert it 3 times. And he used that to block me from the site for 48 hrs.No problem as that was mistake from my side. But he is like using that. Whenever I made a single edit or even add a discussion section point he used to put warning and all that messages on my talk pages. At first they were awkward but later I understand he do that on any edit that I make. He always use canvass with other editors like user:Kautilya3 and they come to his aid. I let that go and I again started editing occasionally.

Then again some days before I stuck on his edits where he did the same things with other editors. He keep removing their edits. No talking and reasoning with them in civil way. Nothing. I was fed up with his behavior as he was constantly attacking me. Selecting my edits and undo them from a very long time(after his temple page got deleted) I dont want to name this but he is blocked from other questioning sites for the same behaviour , Islamophobic views and hate content. But I am really fed up of his behaviour.

I opened an investigation but it was closed as I didn't provide diff and I didnt had any idea what diffs are. Whenever he got something edited he puts warning on other user and try to supress them with his alt accounts or friends account.

Once again we got into arguement where he was adding tax evasion section of a liberal media portal of India. I argued that we can't put a section naming it tax evasion on the basis of a raid(raid was during election time and it had political purposes but I don't want to go into that). After he cant reason with me on that he tried to opened a harassment report on me. And then delibirately call Kautilya3 and YamBlanter on their respective talk pages and they both came to the report and put bad comments for me. Someone seeing only the report page will see their views which are obviously biased as they are involved in groupism. But internally he called them from his side. You can check their pages if he didn't remove that. But I took screenshots of that calling for aid.

Now we reason their. We were advised by another uninvolved editor whom I met first time , to stay far away from each as this case is opened. Then after that I stopped having a single conversation with u:Harshil169. Not a little bit. I continued with a page that I wanted from long ago. I published that page and as I was editing. A person with IP adress and account made a few minutes ago started disruptive editing. Same persin whose account was made 12 mins ago put my article into deletion here. I highly suspect that this is same user:Harshil169.You can see simiarity between this and this. I responded calmly as I can having suspicion that this is the same guy. I continued with my work but then u:Harshil169 (who is blocked here) stsrted his harassment on Wikimedia commons. He delibirately crawl in my contributions (despite of being warned to stay away) and put my images under deletion. That image although deleted but I know the intentions were not right behind this. He do this with me intentionally. He discuss with other editor to put my other image in deletion which was soleley made by me. It seems like he is despirately trying to find rules and reason to somehow harass me for whatever reason he has.I reported this to another editor u:DBigXray and he told me that you blocked him here but I was told to not to interact with him so I didn't even care to find the reason . His like there is some case going between him and me and always act hostile with any way possible. See this. I highly suspect that this is same user:Harshil169.You can see simiarity between this and this. I responded calmly as I can having suspicion that this is the same guy. I continued with my work but then u:Harshil169 (who is blocked here) stsrted his harassment on Wikimedia commons. He delibirately crawl in my contributions (despite of being warned to stay away) and put my images under deletion. That image although deleted but I know the intentions were not right behind this. He do this with me intentionally. He discuss with other editor to put my other image in deletion which was soleley made by me here . Apparantely it seems like he is doing for good faith but in reality he is despirately trying to find rules and reason to somehow harass me for whatever reason he has.I reported this to another editor u:DBigXray and he told me that you blocked him here but I was told to not to interact with him so I didn't even care to find the reason . But his harassment dont stop anywhere. His disperation to search me my articles, putting them under deletion and discussing with other editors to find rules to somehow delete my images or my contributions show the extent upto which this guy can go to harass other. He is so hostile that he thinks some case he going in between him and me. Compare this and this

I will continue with the work which is my passion but this u:Harshil169 is clearly not good in any behavior either on moral editing background or from professional point of view of editing. I really want you to take action against him even after getting blocked here he is crawling in my contributions and selectively selecting me edits for don't know what purpose.

This is the thing. I don't have any personal issue with the guy. But as a student I understand the value wikipedia and how it has to be remained free. If certain ideologies tries to disrupt the views by silent editing then that will hurt only wikipedia's integrity. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)