Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Judgement Reasoning

You issued a "No violation" judgement yesterday at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=928381089&oldid=928380352&diffmode=visual#User:David_Gerard_reported_by_User:Micah71381_(Result:_No_violation) but you didn't provide any reason as to why. I was hoping that you could enlighten me as to what made you decide to go that route? In my mind, the case was a slam dunk, but I'm obviously biased. I would like to learn from this experience so I can both bring stronger cases to arbitration in the future, and not waste the time of administrators if there is no case to be made. Can you please elaborate on your reasoning for your judgement? I think on the Edit_warring page would be ideal, so other users can benefit from the educational value of seeing administrator reasoning, but here is fine if you prefer to keep it slightly more private. Micah Zoltu (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have responded at ANEW but you failed to ping me properly, so I didn't see your question. Please read WP:3RR and explain to me how David violated it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that, does this not ping you? Is the |Bbb23 part required (I thought that was just for display purposes)?
[[User:Bbb23]]
The page is under General Sanctions, thus subject to WP:1RR. Here are four reverts from David on that page within 24 hours (violating both 1RR and 3RR):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926487025&oldid=924070916 - 2019-11-16T21:40:30‎ David Gerard 3,404 bytes -16,004‎ Reverted to revision 924070916 by Narky Blert (talk): Rv - too much added content from non-RSes - need non-crypto sources (TW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926509418&oldid=926508960 - 2019-11-16T21:55:10‎ David Gerard talk contribs‎ 3,404 bytes -16,004‎ rv - please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926578276&oldid=926567057 - 2019-11-17T09:46:48‎ David Gerard talk contribs‎ 3,404 bytes -5,479‎ Reverted to revision 926509418 by David Gerard (talk): Rm extensive unsourced rambling (TW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926619314&oldid=926618736 - 2019-11-17T16:36:14‎ David Gerard talk contribs‎ 3,395 bytes -16,004‎ Reverted to revision 926600888 by 88.86.137.223 (talk): Rv apparent spam from project, all crypto and self-cites (TW)
The first two reverts were over the same edit, the third one was over a different set of changes (I was attempting a different strategy for getting content added), then the fourth one was once again for the original content.
Reading over my filing, it appears I didn't mention that the page was under 1RR general sanctions, which was my mistake. I assumed that the pages under general sanctions were "well known" to administrators, though over the last 24 hours I have learned that general sanctions are actually pretty common and so in hindsight that was a poor assumption. Also, I didn't realize that a #RR violation was a critical requirement for filing an ANEW, which if I understand your comment it is? I left it out thinking that the rest of the problems with his edits would be sufficient, and anyone who read through all of that would likely also see the 4 reverts within 24 hours, so I didn't highlight the 4RRs. In the future I'll be sure to highlight the #RRs in any reports I may file.
Should I re-file my complaint, this time mentioning that the page is under General Sanctions and more clearly citing the 4 reverts in a row? Or do you want to re-review the case given this new information? Or should I chalk this up to a learning experience for me, and go back to trying to make changes to that page and see if the problem persists?
Since I have you here, is there a different AN page that I should use when the broader issue is with an editor violating Wikipedia editing policy (specifically an administrator, who is held to a much higher standard), and edit wars are the lesser of the problems? I looked through all of the different places to lodge a complaint, and ANEW felt like the most general, but if I understand you correctly, ANEW is specifically just for 1RR/3RR issues. I just realized that WP:ANI actually has incidents filed on it directly. I previously only read the top (where it links out to a bunch of different AN pages) and didn't realize it had reports as well. I think that is probably a more appropriate place to report general behavioral problems. Micah Zoltu (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, you really need to learn how to express yourself more succinctly and more coherently. It's like you're talking to yourself, not to others. I'll do my best to address the key points. There is no indication of a 1RR restriction on that article, so 1RR is irrelevant. David's latest edits were a set of consecutive edits on November 27 from 18:25 to 18:29. Prior to that, he had edited on November 26 at 14:10 or about 28 hours earlier, meaning they were not within a 24-hour period, but even if I push the envelope a bit, that's only two reverts, not the four required to violate 3RR. Prior to that he hadn't edited for 9 days (November 17). This is not even sufficient to constitute a pattern of edit-warring (as opposed to violating 3RR).
  • To ping another editor, you must do two things, use one of the correct formats of their username (you did that one fine) and sign the post in the same edit as the attempted ping (you failed to sign).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll work on providing better ANI reports in the future (though, hopefully none will be necessary). I have already learned a lot from this one, and I appreciate the feedback!
  • In one of David's reversions he linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies and he also posted a notice of the sanction and "one revert per twenty-four hours" rule on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MicahZoltu&diff=926578338&oldid=460624299
  • "A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here." Are such notices safe to ignore if the talk page doesn't have one of those general sanction banners? Should a general sanctions banner be added to the talk page (if so, I will need to learn how).
  • Re: the timeline, the 4 reverts I linked above show (for me) as ranging from the 16th @ 21:40 to 17th at 16:36. That is a 19 hour difference across all 4 reverts. It is worth noting that when I first encountered the problems I didn't know the process for filing an ANI and I was hoping to resolve the issue amicably via talk pages, which resulted in me not filing an ANI until this week. During that gap week I was waiting to see if he would engage with me on his talk page (I now know that the Augur talk page was a more appropriate place to engage with him). Upon receiving no engagement, I then tried to make some new changes, which were immediately reverted at which point I went out and learned how to (poorly) file an ANI. Micah Zoltu (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right about a few things. It is not necessary to have notices on an article Talk page for the sanctions to apply. David Gerard is well aware of the sanctions, so no notice to him is required. David did in fact violate 1RR on November 16-17 and could have been blocked for it. Two comments for you. First, I think it would have been better to file a report at WP:AE rather than ANEW. Second, by the time I reviewed your report, the November 16-17 violation was very old (stale). And you're right, it would have been better for you to mention the sanctions (I was not aware of them) at ANEW, although it might have gotten lost in all the verbiage you posted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you taking the time to work through this with me, and I apologize for my failures at filing a clear and concise report with the appropriate information in a timely fashion. Do you think I should go to WP:AE now with this issue, or (due to the staleness) go back to attempting to edit the page and see if the behavior continues? Perhaps I should ping him here, or link to this dialog on the ANI page, so he is aware of this conversation (it feels a bit weird to be discussing this incident about him "in secret" like this, which I know is my fault for not pinging correctly on the ANI page)? Sorry for all the questions, I'm doing my best to read everything I can about the dispute resolution process but it seems that I don't yet fully grok it! Micah Zoltu (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I already pinged David above. Because of the age of the problem, I'd let it go and move on. BTW, please stop calling WP:ANEW, which is where you filed the report, WP:ANI, which is a completely separate noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Heavily unsourced article

Hi Bbb23. I'm reaching out to you as I've found a heavily unsourced and unreferenced article about Firdaus Kharas. Would you recommend nominating for deletion or another course of action? Thanks for your input. Dr42 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a piece of crap to me, but you'd still have to do WP:BEFORE to satisfy yourself that the person is not notable. Another thing you could do is clean it up, which would be a significant amount of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is the right place?

I swear I really am trying to do the right thing here and am doing my best to post things in the right place!

You indicated that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_Disruptive_Editing_by_a_Wikilawyer? was in the wrong place. Would the project page (rather than Talk page) of the same name be the right place to get feedback? My thinking was that since I just wanted some feedback about how to proceed, not actually file an issue, that the project page wouldn't be appropriate. Also, the project page says: This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here I suspect this request for feedback isn't "of interest to administrators" (it is really to help me understand how to proceed) and as an "inexperienced user" it feels like the wrong place.

I'm doing my best to try to make Wikipedia a better place (more useful encyclopedic knowledge), but as you have seen I'm struggling with what the proper protocol is for achieving that goal. Micah Zoltu (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, maybe the Teahouse is the right place to get started... Micah Zoltu (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment was pointless?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=prev&diff=928538872 Can you expand on why you believe this comment is pointless? The user seemed to misunderstand the 1RR and 3RR rules, and I was attempting to provide some guidance on the matter. If my guidance was wrong, an explanation of how it was wrong would be appreciated, and calling it "pointless" seems unnecessarily hostile. If my guidance wasn't wrong, why was it pointless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

First, there was no reason for you to be commenting at all. You should not be performing admin-like tasks. You're barely experienced enough to edit constructively. Second, no one was confused about 1RR/3RR. Third, do you really think an article about a bridge would be under a 1RR restriction? I've tried very patiently to help you, but I am not going to spend any more time on it as I think your entire approach to Wikipedia is wrong and that you are probably beyond help. Please don't respond to this comment. I have nothing more to say. If you need help, you'll have to find it elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Page wrongly deleted

The Hilary Rowland page was deleted by speedy deletion but did not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, and should be restored. Please restore and if you take issue with any of the content, post in Talk and revise rather than delete. Thank you! SarahWoodstock (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@SarahWoodstock: I already told you what to do on your Talk page, but you apparently wish to ignore it as it doesn't suit your agenda. If you continue to create Talk pages of non-existent articles rather than follow Wikipedia procedures, you risk being blocked. Frankly, I don't believe you have any legitimate purpose in being here other than to promote Rowland.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are being so hostile. I don't see any instructions. You only said my editing was disruptive, but I was only improving the post. As I said, given that the page was live for over a decade, I don't believe this page for the criteria for speedy deletion. Please restore and tell me what to change. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talk • contribs) 13:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding deleted article

Good evening, A page that I recently tried my hand at creating, Caresocius, was deleted for being an advertisement. I was not finished with creating the page and wanted to incorporate more or perhaps remove elements that may seem like an advertisement. This is a company that I discovered and was really passionate to write about in my homeland. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions for the article that can help me become a better contributor. Thank you for the help. Csdestiner09 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC) talk

A significantly more likely reason why you wrote that article is that you were paid to do so. Blocked for UPE. MER-C 11:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has admitted editing on certain topics, but the account itself has not edited those topics. Might be worth a check. MER-C 13:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Mohanthal for you

For nonstop work at SPI
Traditional Gujarati sweet dish which will give you some energy and refreshments. Only consume if you don’t have diabetes. :p Harshil want to talk? 16:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User: SeanMXD

Why do you keep removing the picture on Yenitza Muñoz? SeanMXD (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure re the chemical weapons dispute

Hi, did you mean to leave a closing message on this AN3 where you wrote 'No action' in the header? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Do you think I should have? SharabSalam self-reverted, which mooted the issue of whether they had violated 1RR. Honestly, I'm not sure they needed to do that for a revert of something that was added two years ago, but... I'll leave a comment, though, if you think that would be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Now closed per my wording. I asked because sometimes random people come by and change the headers of these reports, so it is worth checking for an admin comment in the body. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

86.8.201.* blocks

Should 86.8.201.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) get blocked along with the other address you just blocked in that range? See Spider-Man: Far From Home for edits in question. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing it to my attention. So many, and I felt I had to block them singly, which is so more work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this a situation of ban evasion? Simmerdon3448 is claiming that they were reverting edits by a banned user—as they are appealing the block I just gave them for 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
You can see that my blocks were CU blocks. The question is did Simmerdon3448 know that at the time they reverted. I didn't look. Did they claim it in any of their edit summaries? Did they have a basis for such a claim if they indeed made one? Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, constructively, indef block == ban for purposes of revert-on-sight. I did ask where the diff of the report to ANI was for enforcement of ban evasion. I'll take a look at the edit summaries closer; all the ones I saw mentioned edit warring, not ban evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
And no mention of ban evasion until after the fact. They claimed reverting disruptive editing. The kicker for me was when they reverted one more time even after I told them they were involved in a content dispute and did not qualify for the 3RR exemption. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Although you're more on top of this than I am, I would leave them blocked unless they show some insight into their policy violations, which, thus far, doesn't seem the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's my inclination, and they don't seem to show any insight into the policy. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some situation that you knew more about. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for my behavior regarding posting my website as i was unaware of Wikipedia's policy. Sorry if i offended you but can you please remove the block? Hams999 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hi, Bbb23. Just dropping by to say thanks for the assistance on deleting my erroneously created investigation request page on a suspected sockpuppeteer. It's obviously my first time requesting an investigation on sockpuppetry, so I wasn't quite certain how to go about it. So thanks for the assistance. I appreciate it.

Migsmigss (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it inappropriate, you mean by possible outing? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted

So I created a page for the technical fest of my college but after being accepted it was deleted. Reason being it's an event but the problem is that there is a category page for these events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technical_festivals_in_India There are 30+ pages of the same kind as my page was and there are some pages with hardly any content. The page that I created has citation and was informational but it got deleted anyway. So, I wanted to ask what exactly is different in those pages and my page... I can't link to the page because it's deleted but it was "Titiksha (Fest)" Thank You Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bothiman

Hey there, is there any chance you could check for Bothiman sleepers? Is that super-vague? I saw Lisvanna show up at an article on Vijay to emphatically demand the removal of a source that suggested the latest Vijay film might not have made as much as other sources were claiming. Since our chief Vijay fan is Bothiman, that's got me thinking. They also created a user page, as socks often do, but it's not exactly the same format as Bothiman, so I'm not 100% confident that there is a behavioural match. Any help would be appreciated, as usual. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Pgagrwl (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Gracias. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, Bbb23, since you're talking about them, 99.99% sure Petersunl this is the latest - usual Vijay hype-train (whoo! whoo! all aboard!) edits. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Apples&Manzanas

Hi, suspect this account is a sockpuppet, they started an AFD in their first few edits. Just asking if it reminds you of anyone before I look closer, it reminds me of several blocked editors such as Sheldybett (talk · contribs), regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Page wrongly deleted - entekrishi.com

Hi. Why you deleted entekrishi.com page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entekrishi.com that article was deleted in 2015 and restored in 2015 due to the value of that portal. See the news in Indian TV channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFQD-8GJHYU . See the news in NEWS paper https://www.manoramaonline.com/environment/green-heroes/new-gen-agriculture.html . if you want more than I can search and share the links of many news papers. If you dont understand the languages in local news then dont think that the page(entekrishi.com) has no value. I am a Kerala person. I belong to that NGO. We know the value of their portal and the use of that portal in Kerala. That portal is not owned by any privet company or group. That portal is controlled by a NGO of farmers. Please help them to modify the content if they written that page like advertisement. Please restore and if you take issue with any of the content, post in Talk and revise rather than delete. Please please please help farmers in Kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisonje (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jaisonje: See WP:42 and WP:NUKE for why it was deleted. Read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest and this guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted before trying again. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of my in AfD

Please point to any rules in Wikipedia that prevent my perfectly reasonable vote on AfD that you are harassing and abusing me over.MarcelB612 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. BD2412 T 05:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not disrupt anything. I engaged appropriately in the AfD voting process, I did not disrupt it. My participation was then disrupted, by Bbb23, to make a point by the way. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point DOES NOT apply at all to this case. I was not protesting the AfD process. I was not using the AfD process "in a way I felt was consistent, with the aim of making it changed". I am not protesting for any sort of change to Wikipedia's AfD process. Indeed, as I've already stated: I was NOT making a "protest vote". MarcelB612 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You're more or less on your own there. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Q

Hi Bbb--I'm dropping this here because you placed a CU block on Franny3249 (talk · contribs), who I see now was a sock of DinoP5568135 (talk · contribs). I checked an IP that Binksternet suspected was evading a block on Glam metal fan 5150 (talk · contribs), and it's very duckish, but CU led me to Franny. Can you maybe have a look at both accounts, and figure out what's going on? Is Dino clever? Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless they've moved or on vacation, Glam is Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Right. But maybe they're cloned. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes, Bbb. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My page got deleted for "Blatant hoax"

So after making my page of my fictional country (even precise it was, no harm was done), it gets deleted for "blatant hoax". The worst part is that I never said it existed IRL, I said it was fictional. I find this removal very unfair as I also spent hours of work on it. I'd like to appeal this deletion, please. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brice Tavan (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to screw around. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Brice Tavan, your fantasy still exists on fandom.com. Keep it there. Don't confuse it with the real world. Cabayi (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Cabayi, they have no standards there. What website would allow a period after a section title? What is this world coming to? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly so Drmies. You wouldn't see that kind of anarchy in any of the fantasy countries at nationstates.net or iiwiki.us. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for temporary protection to my user talk page

Would it be possible to request to have temporary protection to my user talk page? Because I've received quite a few messages recently, and none of them were of any value. (If you check the last ones that I've received, you'll know why I've labelled them as not having any value) I was thinking of requesting that my talk page be temporarily protected so that only users with autoconfirmed status and up can post messages on my user talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Done for one month this time. Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

More Bothiman crap

Hey man, I just discovered Dindotas who is an obvious Bothiman sock. I don't know why this one didn't show up in recent CU checks, but it's been alive since late November. Could I please ask you to look around for others? I'll block this one. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see any others. CU checks are not foolproof, particularly when socks use different ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Same person?

I was looking at Talk:Inter Milan#THE LOGOOOOOO!!! and for some reason my gut was telling me that Kalabio and Super Mirai Trunks might be the same person. Today, Super Mirai Trunks popped up again asking the same weird question! I don't know what's going on, just thought it was weird and let you know if you wanted to investigate, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Kalabio hasn't edited since October 15. Super Mirai Trunks didn't start editing until November 7. Other than the intersection on the Talk page, in what other ways have the two users been disruptive? If they were editing at the same time, it would be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's more of what is written and how it's written, "I'm an Italian Inter Milan fan, watch out for trolls!!!" written by Kalabio, and "and since I'm an Inter fan, it really bothers me." written by the other guy. Same type of writing style to me, kinda makes me think it's the same person on two different accounts. That's about all I can say. Govvy (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
You're not grasping my point. Assuming they are the same person, is what they are doing sufficiently abusive to constitute socking, particularly since the older account stopped editing before the newer account began?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Not much on the English wiki contrib... Okay.. nm then! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello,please you deleted this page (Yve Digital) some months back. Can you please restore it back? You can do your background check on the company again and see. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yve_Digital&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamebaahgh (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Amrik Mondal

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Amrik Mondal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Firdaus Kharas

Hi Bbb23 hope you are well. I am requesting your assistance with this user Special:Contributions/Vinlev since he's an SPA that seems to be creating, editing, and defending articles about himself (Firdaus Kharas), but I have no way to prove that. Can you please have a look at the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas? Thank you. Dr42 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this has anything to do with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Hey there, Bbb23. Thank you again for your response to this report. However, I do have a question on which I'd like to hear your take.

One of the disputed matters was the inclusion of a Hollywood Reporter (THR) citation. As it exists, the article in question, which chronicles the subject's career, contains two citations of two different reviews of two different films from THR–which is a reliable source per WP:RSP. Krimuk2.0 and I could not agree on whether or not another citation from THR that reviews another movie is appropriate. During the discussion, they stated to me: If there are already two THR reviews in the article, find a different one. There are reliable sources apart from Variety and THR, who publish reviews, so I fail to understand this THR obsession other than a need to make a point.

Regardless of whether there are other sources that could verify the disputed information, I'd like to be clear on the topic, thefore, I was wondering whether you could provide guidance regarding whether there could be too many citations from one reliable source in an article. This would clear up a lot of what's being disputed and help our discussion greatly. Thank you again! KyleJoantalk 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood. In that case, I'll see if the other editor would like to request dispute resolution. Thanks again! KyleJoantalk 14:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sufficient behavioral evidence for SPI

Could you tell me what you'd consider sufficient behavioral evidence for SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

cheers

Merry Christmas, Bbb23!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:RealDinoFan92

Accopulocrat

Hello,

I recently received a tip that indeffed sockmaster User:Accopulocrat, who has been evading his ban with a series of IPs, may also be operating the Numerosis account. While I don't currently have the time to file a formal SPI, the behavioral similarities seemed striking enough to justify passing this tip along to you, considering your past experience with this case. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You're correct. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lukas Liming - Article of Deletion

Lukas has since became popular and has a Google knowledge panel and has over 12k plays on his new album on Spotify. He has been interviewed and will be getting interviewed by another organization which will have the video posted on YouTube.

-- Do I have permission to post another article under his name? 

- Please answer as soon as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisbro3812712 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Simmerdon3448

I feel that Simmerdon3448 should also have been blocked on WP:CIR and WP:IDHT grounds, as he has repeatedly demonstrated a failure or refusal to understand Wikipedia policy, as shown here. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 23:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Alialavi4000

Hi there. I reported Alialavi4000 as sockpuppeteer of the banned account Survivingparadise. You wrote in response "Waste of time. Closing." Could you please explain why you dismissed this report and why you felt it was a waste of time? I was careful to follow the policies as laid out by Wikipedia and to provide evidence, including four incidents of identical or near-identical edits from both accounts to the same page. I was genuinely surprised by your response and would like to learn so that I can be a more effective editor in the future. Thank you. -Alexanderj (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The master hasn't edited in over a year and a half, and the puppet was blocked nine years ago. We will not initiate an investigation into such old disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UnknownAssassin1819

Thanks. I was tempted but unsure. Guy (help!) 23:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It was easier for me because I had the advantage of a more distant perspective, having never even heard of this user until the discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael R. Licona's Birthday

Hi. Why did you revert my recent edit to Michael R. Licona's profile? How exactly was my contribution unsourced when I provided a link to his Facebook profile with proof of the relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources must be placed in the article, not in edit summaries, and, generally, Facebook is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't his personal Facebook page be sufficient evidence of his birthday? How is that any less reliable than if he were to have said information published on his official website or some other source? If anything, it the former ought to be more trustworthy, as he personally operates his own Facebook page. Can you please incorporate said reference into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Proving

Hello, I am (wrongfully this time) accussed of being/or having a puppet account. Can you please confirm that no wikipedia users are associated with any of the ips of my accounts? In total I have 3 accounts; TakisA1, El Vecto and Panageotean Graphics. Thank you in advance.(TakisA1 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC))

I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(Panageotean Graphics (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))
I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(El Vecto (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))
@TakisA1: Please answer the following: (1) a diff or diffs of the accusation of your having a sock puppet, (2) why you need three accounts, and (3) why you have come to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) I donot understand what you mean by diff. If you mean evidence, because I used a puppet before, I am accussed of being related with a puppet master (User:Vlantimir) because an account of him reverted a change I made in the file of the coats of arms of Greece (2) The one was a puppet I created and I regret (it's now blocked) and the other is for me to upload pictures with a better name (3) I came to your talk page because I read you have the capacity to prove if two accounts are or are not related. I think they accuse me of being/having a puppet of Vlantmir and User:Bobbynihi (TakisA1 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC))
Vlantmir and Bobbynihi have never edited at en.wiki. I assume you're talking about accusations at el.wiki. I have nothing to do with other projects. You'll have to deal with this at el.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok then sorry, I though your abilities were universal.(TakisA1 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC))

Disruption Block

I don't mean to question your judgement, and I know there's a history here with 2604:6000:130E:49B0:0:0:0:0/64 that I'm not fully familiar with from a quick glance at the block log. That said escalating directly from one week to three months seems a little harsh, considering the apology on the talk page and the promise to stop adding the offending link. I am sure an unblock will come if this IP promises to be good in a well written request, but in general blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive, thanks for your consideration. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that block on the paid AfD voter! It is really a relentless promotional effort. It's one of those cases where the article is borderline notability, but if kept will almost certainly be promotional given the efforts. Also, Apristen would appear to be a sock as well if you take into account the statement on User:Iexeru's unblock request. But that requires a minute of off-wiki research.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Piggoos

Hey 3B, I saw your blocking of Piggoos as a sock of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Any chance that TabahiRoy could be related? I've seen them intersect with SKS, like at Yehh Jadu Hai Jinn Ka!, where I see intersections with Momrockzz, a SKS sock. But of course they could also be someone like Dimpletisha or Diva166 or anybody else. They're all doing a great job of confusing the hell out of me. I will say that TabahiRoy has a stank on them, though. Ten day old account, making major changes, being bossy about stuff that a noob wouldn't know. ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're confused, you can imagine how I feel. :-)  Confirmed to Dimpletisha.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with part of your SPI

Sorry to disturb you and thank you for detecting and blocking the socks that you did. Re. this investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SamuelBurckhalter#14_December_2019: you determined that Martin Kempf is not related to the other sock accounts. I believe this must be on IP evidence alone. Perhaps the sock master was on vacation or otherwise editing from another location/ip zone, when logged into that account. But I am not convinced you adequately considered the behavioural evidence. Can you check the strange way he formats his signature, just like all the other sock accounts that you confirmed as sock accounts. I don’t think I have ever seen on here someone who uses the four tildes and then manually types their username beside the wiki generated signature. Can I ask you to carefully check the four listed sock accounts about a quarter of the way down my evidence (3 of which you confirmed) and check each diff to see the unique way they format their signature on talk pages. I fear the sock master will likely resume using this account knowing now that it has been ‘confirmed’ as unrelated. I am convinced you are wrong on this finding. Sorry to trouble you with this, I know and appreciate your volunteer time in this matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Martin Kempf was on a proxy and was why he showed up as unrelated but it is the same person, I am sure from unique behavioural evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. WP:DUCK blocs are not a CU function, you can ask at WP:ANI. Guy (help!) 01:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the ANI suggestion Guy. Bbb23 is an administrator and could, in theory, perform a WP:DUCK block, so what I will do is give Bbb23 the time to consider the above before I consider taking it to ANI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not block accounts based on behavior when the technical evidence against the block is as compelling as this one. Martin Kempf was editing from a legitimate ISP and from a different continent from the others. If an administrator wants to block them anyway, that's their prerogative, but at a minimum I would strenuously object to the user being tagged as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply but I am still unconvinced. Not only is the incredibly unusual signature the same between confirmed socks and Martin Kempf, but look at this: Martin Kempf writes I totally agree with Leobenite... and then about two hours later QueerWordGirl, a confirmed sock, writes: Leobenite I totally support.... They write and use words the same way as well as in the same context and within two hours of each other, they even sign their sigs in same very bizarre way.. And in both those diffs you can see the signing with the four tildes and manually typing their username after the four tildes generated signature. I respect your judgement that the ISP is on a different continent but I am not convinced by your assertion it is a legitimate ISP IP address. The behavioural evidence has me convinced it is an undetected proxy, especially as your own investigation detected at least one proxy IP used by a sockmaster during this investigation. To be honest I would feel uncomfortable going to ANI and asking an admin to disagree with you. Does this additional behavioural evidence that I have just discovered reach a more compelling level than the compelling IP evidence? If you can find me examples where editors plural manually type their username after the four tildes on the same article talk page within hours and days of each other - heck even within years of each other, with exact the same disruptive fringe POV pushing on the same article then maybe I could trust your IP based conclusions more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
And on the 2nd of four edits Martin Kempf knows how to ping an editor. No newbie learns wiki codes that quickly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, Bbb23 follows CheckUser policy. If the other accounts qualify for WP:DUCK blocks, WP:ANI is over yonder. Guy (help!) 11:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough I don’t want Bbb23 to violate any policy but I do think as a checkuser they should consider if they can determine if that IP is perhaps an undiscovered proxy for future checkusers and take the appropriate actions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlocs/Archive

So I guess Jlocs and Qzxv5 are not the same person? Did you CheckUser it? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Is a change required once partial block is deployed? The current statement is currently technically incorrect - users can be partially blocked in MediaWiki software, though it is not enabled here.--GZWDer (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You should stop changing policy without discussion. I apologize, though, for reverting you without an explanation. It was a misclick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SmallBigPeile - sandbox

Hello there. I am just writing to inquire as to why what I had written in my sandbox was deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmallBigPeile/sandbox). I was wondering if it could possibly be restored as it is supposed to be my final project for an English class and the plan was to be a possible inclusion in the encyclopedia. If this is about the image 'Barabas - Kean' that was uploaded, it was no longer part of my sandbox. I made sure that all of the images that were part of it fulfilled the proper copyright regulations. Thank you for your time. I really need a quick response. SmallBigPeile (talk)(talk) 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallBigPeile (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Bbb, I think that sandbox should just simply be moved to Barabas (character). I haven't looked at all of it, and it needs some work, but it strikes me as a decent and good-faith attempt to write up a significant character. (Surely you've read all the Marlowe plays?) There's an old article under the redirect Barabas the Jew, but that name is needlessly racist. I'll be happy to help clean it up if it goes live; there might be a DYK in it, depending on the quality. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, the person who wrote this draft article in his sandbox is a student of mine in a course I am teaching at the University of Pennsylvania. In their sandboxes, students are writing draft articles for possible later inclusion in Wikipedia, and also as a writing exercise. Can you please restore this user's sandbox. I was under the impression that a sandbox is for practicing Wikipedia article-writing and hence this is the proper place for him to draft this potential article. It needs to be restored asap so his project can be assessed. Thank you. User:zlesser —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- can you explain a bit more about why you deleted the sandbox in the first place? This is an assignment I do with students with some regularity, and I want to be sure to avoid this in the future. Was it just an error or is there something I should do differently next time to make sure no one's sandbox gets removed? User:zlesser —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's best for students to identify themselves on their userpages so administrators and other editors understand why all they're doing is editing their sandbox. I have no way of telling, and there are non-student users who do nothing but play around in their sandbox and never contribute anything to Wikipedia. In this instance, it started with User:Chiggibe/sandbox (whom I now assume is another student) who had been doing nothing but editing their sandbox since September 11 (three months). I deleted it (the user has since restored it), but then I also noticed that Chiggibe edited SmallBigPeile's sandbox, so I deleted that one as well. There's nothing wrong with students editing each other's sandboxes, but, again, I had no idea they were students.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb. User:zlesser, unfortunately I have seen many examples of students who just cannot be identified one way or another as students, and frequently that leads to misinterpretations and problems. Bbb signaled that one student edited another sandbox: now that we know what was going on, we understand, but very frequently when we see groups of brand-new accounts editing the same thing, sometimes in ways that go against policies and guidelines, we think "ah, sock puppetry".

    The best thing to do, IMO, is to always communicate with Wikipedia:School and university projects (which also has a variety of tools for you and your students). User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) knows all about it. And I think it's incredibly important that students identify themselves as students--on their user page, on their talk page, and maybe in an edit summary (so that it shows up in their contribution history, which is often the first and sometimes the last thing others look at). We have templates for that--see User:PeterYatesVT, or you could put Template:Welcome student on the talk page of all your students the moment they get their account. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • ok thanks, that all makes sense. For next time I will do that. For now (the next few weeks) you can see a list of all students in this class in my own sandbox. User:zlesser

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Hi, I noticed some users claimed I may be a sockmaster of Batbash or JoeZ451. Can I initiate a sockpuppet investigation of myself, and if I can, how can I do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Who besides My very best wishes is accusing you? You can respond at the SPI if you wish, although that kind of back-and-forth is usually unproductive. You cannot request an investigation of yourself, though. "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." (WP:CHK).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there is a connection, but someone may want to frame you (I don't think MBLV is trying to do this, but maybe someone else has created a sock to make a connection, perhaps just to throw more chaos into this). There is a new account which was discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoganTheWatermelon/Archive which someone observed may look like someone's attempt to suggest I am socking (a lot of their edits are effectively copying my votes at AfDs with virtually the same rationale). Coincidence? Shrug.
Anyway, I came here to ask Bbb23 about 1) the usefulness of behavioral analysis. In recent SPIs I was involved in it didn't seem to matter; and checkusers don't seem to even comment on whether it is useful or not, it seems simply ignored, with comments limited to 'different IP/proxy=inconclusive'. And if so, 2) what recourse is there when new account that looks behavioraly like an old one to several users use proxies? Are they immune to SPI, despite behavioral evidence? What behavioral evidence is sufficient, outside of the sock plainly saying they are a sock of an old account? And why aren't the proxies they use blocked? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Behavioral evidence is mandatory at SPI. The analysis of it vis-a-vis technical evidence varies from report to report, and I cannot give you a one-size-fits-all answer. Proxies are not always blocked; that too varies based on the proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I only replied with comments to the ping by Piotrus on SPI. This is probably Batbash. If I wanted to submit an SPI request about any user, I would do it. Not at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
But you also accused Paul of violating policy. If you're not prepared to follow through on that, you shouldn't have done so: it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I clarified my statement on SPI. I do not accuse Paul of violating the policy, and my comments are mostly related to the Joe (the SPI subject) who I think coordinate his activity with editing by Paul; all my comments were made in proper place and supported by diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed comment, but due to some RL problems I cannot visit Wikipedia too frequently. Since the SPI case is already closed, the only place where I can comment is your talk page.

I am somewhat puzzled by MVBW's statements, and I would like to hear your opinion about that, because it seem you are more familiar with the SPI procedure. In his original post at the SPI page, MVBW:

  1. Mentions my name in a context of sock/meatpuppetry;
  2. Compares wording used by me and a suspected sockpuppet;
  3. Compares my and the suspected sockpuppet's editing schedule;
  4. Falsely claims that I was acting as a defender of a blocked sockpuppet (actually, being unfamiliar with sockpuppet blocking procedures, I was curious why the message on the Batbash's page contains no references to their master, for I believed admins can block a sock only after the master has been identified);
  5. Claims that there was definitely coordination between the suspected sock and somebody else, and it is clear from the context that he implied coordination with me. Since no evidences of on-Wiki coordination has been presented, I assume he implies that I am engaged in some off-Wiki coordination.

In connection to that, I would be grateful if you explained me the following:

  1. When two editor's behavioral similarities are being discussed in a context of an SPI, isn't in by itself an accusation of possible sock/meatpuppetry?
  2. If MVBW does not accuse me of anything (as he claimed in his later post), what was the reason to mention my name in a context of that SPI?

I am sincerely trying to understand if MVBW's actions can be explained assuming his good faith, but so far I cannot see how this and that posts could be logically reconciled.

In addition, I still cannot understand what does "coordinate his activity with editing by Paul" means: ""coordinate" implies some common activity, which is impossible without communication. Since no evidences of any on-Wiki coordination have been presented, doesn't this statement mean MVBW again accused me of off-Wiki coordinating with another user?

Thank you in advance for your comments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Bothiman

Hey there. Jimlefs was an easy to spot sock of Bothiman and has been blocked. Any more out there? I think I'm just going to go heavy and hammer his favourite articles shut with Extended Confirmation protection for like a year or something. That should keep them dry from fandrool for a while anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Winkowside seems like a potential candidate on account of how they've selectively interpreted a reference to increase a Vijay film's gross from ~300 crore to ~390. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Gm110m

Hello Bbb23. I just realized that you've checkuser-blocked User:Gm110m. Can you please explain the case a little bit? This is because Gm110m is an active contributor to Persian Wikipedia, and we'll need to take action if there has been an abuse there. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 21:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


User:Postaire

I do not understand why you deleted his user page. He was not misusing WP as a web host, but trying to write an article draft, and as a new user picked the wrong place to do it, not knowing he should have done it on auser subpage or at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Category created by blocked sock

Hey Bbb23, I was using STiki and came across this change made to The Absent One (2014 film). I looked it over, and while technically the film does seem to involve a false accusation of rape, I was curious why the category this user added existed at all. I found that the user created the category and went to town adding the category to various articles, and then you blocked them as a CU confirmed sock not long after. So I reverted the edit. Since you blocked the user, I was wondering: should this category be deleted and removed from all the articles he/she added it to? It doesn't seem like a useful category to me. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It can't be deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as the timing is not right. You can nominate it for a deletion discussion, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done so, thank you for the advice! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A question

Could you please tell me what happened here? It's the first time that I see something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:SerVasi_reported_by_User:Sadko_(Result:_) ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Tricky one

I know we don't do fishing expeditions or unmasking of IPs, but I am disturbed by a series of edits at talk:circumcision which seem to me to fall into the harassment / outing category. 193.175.48.157, 79.219.94.75, 79.219.94.75, Guarapiranga. I suspect that Guarapiranga is not editing from Germany (where the IPs geolocate) and is simply being a dick, but if the IPs are linked to this account then the 24h block is probably inadequate. I'd value your thoughts on this. Guy (help!) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's also 2003:E8:5F15:9216:9925:462F:29B6:C0D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). My hunch is that these are one or more German anti-circumcision activists, quite possibly socks of the many banned activists we've had at this article. I think Guarapiranga is altogether another kettle of fish. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlocs/Archive 2

Did you ever check those in the first place? Or you just closing it without looking to it? Answer please. Flix11 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote why I closed it: "Insufficient evidence". That's as much as you'll get in the way of an answer from me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My apolgizes on my profile, being used as a social media/blog page.

I'm sorry that you had to delete my profile page, I didn't know, when I originally opened my 2nd account on November 23rd, replacing my original profile. Pichu8boy, until I found out that I didn't read the rules here: Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, as it's being similar to more social media, entertainment, and blog page, I wanted to apologize to you, and the website, and please don't block me. EGMinecraftCast (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"We" IP

Bbb23, thanks for taking care of the "we" IP. He's been a pill for several months now, and doesn't seem to want to find something new to do. I can't figure why those few words are worth so much agita, but does no other editing. Happy holidays! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Query re checkuserblock

Hi Bbb23, I noticed you made a checkuserblock of two editors, User:Ponni Concessao and User:Velanatti. While I fully believe that these are one and the same, I don't really understand the block. We have the first editor creating an article about themselves (or about the username they picked), which gets A7 deleted (I haven't seen that version, so I can't judge whether A7 was applicable or not). That editor ceased editing on 8 December (right?), and restarted under a new name the 17th. Being a newbie, they probably weren't even aware that this is not really encouraged, but being successive accounts, with the first one not blocked or sanctioned, is allowed. So, unless there is another account involved (which seems unlikely, as the first has the text "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Velanatti"), I think this checkuser block is not policy compliant and very WP:BITE, just like the deletions (certainly the second). I have discussed the deletion at RHaworth, but the block is yours. Fram (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

I started a discussion at WP:AN#How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident? about edits and actions by you and others. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Removing the added text which does not make sense to me or appears to be vandalism - this is something I am not part of but I believe you did the right thing there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hi Bbb23, I sent you an email about this recent SPI. Did you receive it? Alex-h (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I have nothing to say about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Church of Glory

I've recently discovered that you've deleted Church of Glory article - could you please explain what were the reasons? I disagree with A7 - The article was about a Christian denomination officially registered in Poland, similar to eg. Baptist Union of Poland or Pentecostal Church in Poland. Also There is an article in Polish Wikipedia about the same subject, which exists at Wikipedia since 2010 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bci%C3%B3%C5%82_Chwa%C5%82y). If necessary, more references / secondary sources can be provided to the article. Also, if you could please provide examples of G11 in the deleted article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammon86 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what the article is like on the Polish wiki, but article here was deleted not only per A7 but also per g11 (umambiguously promotional). I don't think there's anything salvageable. I believe it's sourced only to the church's website, which, of course, is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Church's website was not the only source - please check the list again. Like I've already stated, secondary sources can be provided - you could have started discussion on the Talk Page first. If you think that for any part of the article, the language was promotional, you could have provide examples, and then if necessary, a wording could always be amended. Ammon86 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works here. The article was tagged properly and deleted because it satisfied the two criteria. In its last state I wouldn't even move it to draft space because it would still be subject to G11. However, if you wish, you can file a request for undeletion at WP:DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please revoke Simmerdon3448's talk page access

Why hasn't Simmerdon's talk page access been revoked yet? He is repeatedly refusing to own up to his behavior, instead shifting the blame onto everyone else, and his comments clearly indicate there is no intention of ever changing. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 02:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You and the other editors should stop commenting on his Talk page. Just leave him alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

HelloI am Irv Docktor’s son, Paul.

I’d like to request that published works that were removed in May, specifically the books, record albums, magazines and advertisements and posters or be removed from the Irv Docktor listing. Please explain your objections, Perhaps I can make corrections etc. Sincere thanks PaulDocktor at [email protected] and 3035238700 Docktorpaul (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to make this request at Talk:Irv Docktor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

Didn't see you were checking this SPI -- I had started before but didn't set the status. My apologies! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Kevin. I reached the identical result. See how smart we are? However, the sock was fortunate that you got their first. I would have indeffed the master. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a 2-week block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Estanislao Fernández

Hi there. Could you explain that deletion please? I had just declined to delete it some hours before because it featured three sources that are both potentially reliable and contain significant coverage [1] [2] [3] as well as sufficient information to apply WP:ATD as the son of a notable person (e.g. merging to his father's article). Regards SoWhy 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I did look at the revision history but obviously way too fast. I've restored the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

AN/I close

Bbb23, Begoon has a point. I've seen them making several useful reports lately, they've always tried to fix the problem first including leaving clear, non-templated posts on the editor's talk page, and they were being insulted by the peanut gallery. We have few enough thoughtful patrollers left, and you were snarky and unduly dismissive in your close, for what my opinion's worth. I hope someone else will now monitor that reported editor, who is doing something destructive and not communicating, but I'm also concerned about the other stuff that will go unnoticed and unfixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Bbb23 but I agree with Bbb23 in this case. I don't see what is wrong in Bbb23 close. It was not insulting as Begoon is claiming. If Begoon thinks that he is important and that treating his report the same as other editors is an insult then that's his problem. I say this because I have seen Begoon patronizing when he was giving "advices". Of course, Begoon is not the only editor who patronize but these editors are not able to stay in a place where they are treated the same as other editors. They think it is "insulting".--SharabSalam (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If this is about the advise Begoon gave you at your formative ANI days, SharabSalam, I actually felt it was spot on. Sorry, but this feels like gravedancing. El_C 06:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
How is this a grave dancing? I am just saying my opinion about this issue. Did I say something "insulting"?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Y, but "snarky and unduly dismissive" is not, sadly, unique to this "admin" and their approach to any noticeboard report that dares to even tangentially call another admin's judgement into question. I don't want, or expect, an apology - that's why I reverted my post here with the summary of "fuck it - not worth the words" - the close was indeed pathetically insulting and dismissive, not to mention vindictive and completely inaccurate, but I'm fairly certain there is such a lack of human empathy with this user that acknowledgement of that is an utterly alien concept to them. It could be worse, from my point of view - I could be like them. There but for the grace, and all that... From wikipedia's point of view - well, you have what you tolerate, and this guy is empowered to behave like that without much challenge or redress - so, enjoy, I guess... -- Begoon 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have time...

Can you please run a CU on Acr970901? Their only two edits are to my user talk page regarding a topic that several blocked users (namely Billiekhalidfan, whom you blocked) have an interest in, and I am very, very suspicious. Thanks. Ss112 10:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No one I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Bbb23! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Speedy deletion for 2016 Modern Whig Convention

Hello,

I noticed you rejected my Speedy deletion request for 2016 Modern Whig Convention. I would like to note that it the article fails WP:V and WP:N as it is:

  • Orphaned
  • Unverified/uncited
  • Has no notability whatsoever

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulhis899 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Then take it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !

~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Over the line perhaps

This looks to be a bit over the line in terms of outing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I can barely follow it. If you believe it's outing, then you should e-mail the OS team.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion log

You/someone deleted it (Urban Naxals and Me Too Urban Naxal) anyway, but not Urban Naxals: The Making of Buddha in a Traffic Jam is there a hidden agenda? Italawar (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell from your Talk page, you're headed for a block. Try not to make it more likely by posting stupid comments here as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Mark Bourrie sockpuppet

Hi, Bbb23. I just wanted to let you know about a recent BLPN thread about Mark Bourrie. You had banned Sportsman360 for sockpuppetry about 3 months ago, and a nearly identical complaint was submitted this week to the BLPN by Square Offset [4] [5]. I'll submit an SPI request later in the week when I have time. Happy holidays. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No need. Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBbb23たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.


North Korea's 2020 Christmas Gift to the United States

We really should write this up. Here is an early source, which links this, and the latter has, on the right, a link to a video about the Mozu Tombs, which is fascinating. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, is there a TLDR version ? I was hoping for a new rocket or a bomb or something. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption Request

To which directions are you and Drmies referring to? I contacted a CheckUser directly as outlined on the IP Block Exemption page.-Splinemath (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You certain didn't need to contact three checkusers. In any event, you should probably e-mail the checkuser list and make your request there. Frankly, given your lack of tenure and experience, it is unlikely your request will be granted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
What is a reasonable amount of tenure or experience to expect acceptance? -Splinemath (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no precise rule, but you've been editing here for about 8 months and have just over 500 edits. That's not enough...at least in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Thank you Bbb. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I don't agree. Lucky you that I was the recipient of the email. There's such a thing as giving people a trial period, such as 3 months, which is what I will be doing. Risker (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
LMAO, Risker, you changed Bbb23's rights and gave him the IPBE for three months. " Risker changed group membership for Bbb23 from checkuser and administrator to IP block exempt..."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, forgot to change over to the requestor's page. Caught it pretty quickly. Sorry, Bbb23, that was an error on my part. I've added "IPBE exempt" indefinite for now, although I'm sure it's covered under the admin permission. Risker (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Risker: No worries, but I know IPBE is included in the admin permission except having now read more closely policy because of the above, I don't think it's covered for Tor nodes unless it's explicitly specified. In any event, I think it should be removed so I am as I was. As an aside, I know there's such a thing as giving IPBE temporarily, but that doesn't mean it should be done. I still think the user's request should have been reviewed by CUs as a group rather than by you or any other lone CU. But policy permits you do what you do, so... --Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed the right myself. Follow the bouncing IPBE. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Abusive sock

I opened this investigation concerning an abusive, edit-warring sock and was hoping you might be able to check it out? I normally wouldn't reach out like this, but it's abundantly clear this is a sock situation. livelikemusic talk! 02:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeker 18th

I've question related to my own page. Am I allowed to create my own page and tell about myself. Seeker 18th (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Seeker 18th. Here is my view of the matter: You can create a user page that talks about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. That may include some limited content about your life to give context to your Wikipedia editing. You cannot promote yourself or your career, and if your user page is perceived as self-promotional by more experienced editors, it will be deleted. Bbb23 can correct or add to my answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree generally with Cullen. Specifically, your current userpage looks fine, but, as you know, I deleted a different version earlier this month because you falsely claimed to be an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

New sock of U + 1F4AD

Hi, back in October you blocked Hfhjhu as a sock of U + 1F4AD, and now Hfhjhu ujj has started vandalizing the same pages and shares most of their name the previous sock. Emk9 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The sock has gone to meet its maker. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Emk9 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporting Isaacsorry

There an editor who been adding content in the lead section like this in articles. I think this a sock of a blocked account who would routinely rewrite the lead of articles, including to Michael Jackson articles. I have forgotten what that editor name is but the edits looks very similar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you ever remember the other user's name, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the editor's name is Tjdrum2000 (talk · contribs). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
For that you'd have to file a report at SPI. Tjdrum2001 is very stale, and the analysis would necessarily be behavioral.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Publications by Irv Docktor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irv_Docktor.

Hi,

I am Irv Docktor's son, wondering about your reasons for deleting the publications..Thank You, Paul. (Redacted)

website that was edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irv_Docktor

Please allow revisions back to Dec. 2018:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irv_Docktor&oldid=875225611

Thank You, Paul

Docktorpaul (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Docktorpaul (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You should discuss your concerns on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Riku maina

I suspect that Riku maina may be a master account of user:DJDan18 whom I have previously blocked and who has repeatedly been caught evading their block since. This account however, predates DJDan18 so I thought I'd get confirmation. On a side note I hope you have enjoyed a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Glad I checked first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

If a page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, how long should I wait before tagging it? Interstellarity (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You used a specific tag. Read the criterion carefully and tell me if you don't understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I read WP:A3 and WP:A1 and it says not to tag it for the first few minutes it's created. You acted appropriately. Would 10 minutes be a good time frame to wait before tagging it for speedy deletion? Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Indeed, that's what it says in the footnote. BTW, you do not need to ping me on my own Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I use the User:Enterprisey/reply-link script and it adds the ping automatically. I am aware that you are automatically notified of any messages on your talk page. Would it make a difference between adding a ping and not adding it? Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll live. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for closing that sockpuppetry case filed against me. I really do not know that "Ria Cruz" account and I only encountered it when that case was filed. God bless you. RafaelPPascual (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

Sorry for this[6]. I was checking my watchlist and clicked the rollback by a mistake. Puduḫepa 14:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

your CU block of user:2600:387:b:982::28

Back as user:2600:387:b:982::17, who previously claimed to be this user [7] Meters (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Protocol wrong

User:Bbb23, Sorry for putting the post in the middle of the page. Here it is on the bottom. I have not did see your explanation of your reversion of what I wrote on the sockpuppet page. I have not done this often, one other time in 10 years, so I apologize for getting the protocol wrong. Could explain what I did wrong. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, it's sometimes hard to believe that you have 12K edits at Wikipedia. Please sign your post.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I typically sign my posts. I ran off to telephone call from a relative who is in the hospital. I must have pressed enter and run off to take the call. Iss246 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your reverting my request for a Sockpuppet investigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrm7171&oldid=prev&diff=933046658), please tell me what I did wrong. I will make corrections. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Your first question: your quickcheck request did not comply with the instructions (did you read them?) or the formatting. It was easier to undo the mess rather than go to the trouble of reformatting and declining it.
Your second question: I believe you want to allege that Lightningstrikers is a puppet of Mrm7171. In your attempt to do that, you again made a complete mess of it. Instead of including only Lightningstrikers in the list of suspected puppets, you included the master, users previously blocked, another user that was rejected before and hasn't edited in six years, as well as IPs who also have not edited in six years. In addition, you commented without signing in the section reserved for administrators and members of the SPI team. Finally, and most bizarrely, you changed the status of your report to closed. I therefore reverted your edits. I fear there is no way for me to help you do what you want short of doing it myself, and that I will not do because these are your allegations.
You might try asking one of the SPI clerks for help. I can't speak for them, but they might be more patient than I am. It's not just my patience that you have worn out, but you have also forced me to spend time that, in my view, could be more productively engaged elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you user:Bbb23. Iss246 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garettbetty786

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garettbetty786 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The countdown

Bbb23, thank you for the work you do as a CU, and for all you’ve done over the years in an effort to build a quality encyclopedia while keeping it free from the disruption of smelly socks! 🧦🦨
2020!!
  • Out with the old, in with the new!! I'll remember 2019 like it was yesterday!
  • Remember, a New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other.
  • Definition of a hangover: Wrath of Grapes.
  • What kind of doctor fixes broken websites?
A URLologist.

🎉🥂🍾🎊 Atsme Talk 📧 13:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Alt news edit

Dear User, I've completely mentioned the reference on the "Altnews" article. Can I know the reason behind removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4100:2B4B:F175:4DB7:BD14:F9F6 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to take it to the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal(T) 23:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Bbb23,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sock of KillerGho$t

Hi Bbb23. @Robvanvee: has indicated to me that he believes TrackerMercurial136 is a sock of KillerGho$t, and looking at the topics both have edited, I'm inclined to agree. If you get the time, would you be able to run a CU on them? I'm confident TrackerMercurial136 would show up as a sock of somebody you've blocked. The behaviour is very telling to me. Thanks. Ss112 09:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy to provide the diffs. Robvanvee 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
That's okay, thanks. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Given that this conversation is still "active", I took the liberty of coming straight back here. I hope you don't mind. Please find below what appears to be another sock of KillerGho$t. I have compiled my diffs using TrackerMercurial136's edits as they are the most recent sock and have referred to the person as such and not as KillerGho$t.

Overview

TrackerMercurial136 blocked and final edit made 21:27, 28 December 2019.

GildedPhantom175 account created and first edits made 23:05, 28 December 2019.

Addition of music videos

TrackerMercurial136 edits that include adding music videos to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

GildedPhantom175 edits that include adding music videos to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Location format

TrackerMercurial136 edits to location format in infobox: 1, 2, 3

GildedPhantom175 edits to location format in infobox: 1, 2, 3

"Cited source" edit summary

TrackerMercurial136 uses edit summary "cited source": 1, 2, 3

GildedPhantom175 uses edit summary "cited source": 1, 2, 3

Addition of RIAA certification

TrackerMercurial136 adds RIAA certs: 1, 2, 3

GildedPhantom175 adds RIAA certs: 1, 2, 3

Observational diffs:

  • Both have an phenomenal edit summary track record, with both seldom omitting an edit summary at all, however both rarely start an edit summary with a capital letter.
  • Very similar articles being edited: Hip hop related articles, Michael Jackson related articles, record company labels.
  • Very similar areas of articles edited: Dates, genre's, certifications, locations.
  • GildedPhantom175 seems to have had an almost instant grasp of Wikipedia's inner workings, rare for a new editor.
  • Both like to remove talk page messages. GildedPhantom175 vs TrackerMercurial136.

Again, I hope you don't mind my bringing this here but if so, happy to take it to SPI. Also notifying @Ss112: as original poster. Robvanvee 16:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Heh, all that work, and my check took only a few minutes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it was a shit load of work but I don't want to be wasting your time. It was worth it just seeing the fruits of my labor! Many thanks. Robvanvee 17:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch

I have no effing clue what went sideways there, but thanks ever so much for catching it. I've started over, and it should be okay now. I think I'm going to take a break from WP for the day. Thanks again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

While blocked, you are permitted only to discuss your block, not discuss the editing of Wikipedia articles

I never knew that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not familiar with any such rule either. I can imagine drafting by a blocked user that would be out of place, but I don't see any policy barring a blocked editor from constructive discussion on his or her talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It's an extrapoloation of editing by proxy. It also makes sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it may be situationally dependent. Many blocks are intended to be of short/limited duration, and it is not problematic to respond to other messages on their talk page during that time. In some cases, demonstrating that they understand editing is even a condition of unblock. In some cases, the unwillingness to permit editing may be problematic; for example, we have had cases where someone got blocked and someone else figured out it was a great time to go through the blocked user's uploads and tag them for deletion, specifically because the tagger assumed the blocked editor would not be permitted to respond or even alert a trusted colleague to address the tagging. Most of the time, it's not useful, though; and in other cases, the most useful thing the blocked editor could do is close the window and go for a walk before even thinking of responding to the block message or any other comment. Risker (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that. The specific situation that sparked this discussion was a 48-hour block for edit-warring. The blocked editor was discussing the disputed article on his talkpage, and the discussion was removed with an admonition that it was improper. I'm not sure I agree with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The user was discussing two articles, not just the one he was blocked for. Also, there's a bit more to this that's relevant. Two editors were edit-warring at the Rascians article. I warned both of them. The other editor reverted, and I blocked them. Then, this user also reverted, and I blocked them for the same period of time, despite a very recent block of longer per "Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe". And yet here they are happily going through the same discussion with an unrelated user, again justifying their version of the article. I don't see how that's in the least productive. They need to be addressing their conduct, not the fact that they believe themselves to be right (what else is new?).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Users should not be editing by proxy while blocked. A block appeal is often the only thing I permit blocked users to engage in for the duration of their block. Not just because abuse is often rampant. I've been an admin since 2005 — this is not a new thing. What's the point of a block if users circumvent it by discussing matters unrelated to their unblock appeal? (Discussion which may result in edits; again, by proxy.) If blocked users wish to draft proposals (or discussion which, ultimately, may lead to proposals), well, that is a problem — let them do so off-wiki, only submitting those proposals (or engaging in related discussion) on-wiki once unblocked. El_C 21:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with you in this case, Bbb23. It's one thing for someone to respond to unrelated messages on their talk page (e.g., thanking people for their holiday greetings, and I'd probably permit discussion about edits on completely unrelated articles), and another thing to continue discussing the article(s) related to their block. Risker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Now, if user is blocked for topic A, but submits proposals or engages in discussion regarding topic B — that is also a problem. Because the user is blocked: they are not meant to be editing —by proxy or otherwise— any topic. Accepting the above scenario can only work with partial blocks (which I have mixed and uncertain feelings toward at this time), but not under the current, all-encompassing way blocks are designed to work. El_C 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
But I recognize allowing for admin discretion about this. Still, as a general rule, I follow the notion that a block from Wikipedia is a block from Wikipedia (except for appealing said block). El_C 21:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Concurring with you, El_C. It's what I always assumed and the way it should be. Being blocked does not mean 'Business as usual'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

List Of Births Marriages And Deaths

Why did you delete this page? I was only setting it up to see if anyone would remake it BossKoolaid7910 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't create a page in article space with nothing substantive in it. It's disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A case with Unknown as the master should simply not exist.

Sro23 has salted the title as requested. There is however a user Unknown (talk · contribs) who is now pretty much unreportable. Perhaps the page should be fully-protected and show a notice to message an admin clerk with evidence to file any report?

Unknown has four other sock accusations on their talk page, but seems insistent that they like their name which they've had since 2002 and want to keep it.

Not sure how Twinkle will react to either fix.

New year, new conundrums. Happy New Year, Cabayi (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Bbb, there's no good reason for that SPI to exist. If twinkle users want to report suspected socks without an actual sockmaster, well, tough, because there needs to be at least two editors for it to be sockpuppetry. Yes I salted the title, but like you said, the user has been around since 2002- has a clean block log, and has only made two edits in the last year. Something tells me we needn't worry about Unknown socking. Sro23 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. It just makes me uncomfortable knowing there's a situation the process won't cope with gracefully. Please don't tell me about the others I've not stumbled across yet :-) Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The more typical way users have of reporting a sock without an identifiable master is to make the suspected sock the master and list no suspected socks in the report. Any filing with a "phony" username for the master should simply be deleted per G6 with an explanation on the filer's Talk page if the deleter wishes to do so. What happened here is not the "system"'s fault, but the filer's.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SPI status change

I'm curious why you did this. The previous time I changed a "checked" to "moreinfo", when I got the info I need, I deleted the "moreinfo" which put the status back to "open". This was corrected by a clerk back to "checked". I figured if I left the "checked" there, commented out, it would be a reminder to me (or anybody else) on the proper way to revert it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The table doesn't display the proper status with your comment. It now does.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Sounds like a bug in whatever is parsing that to build the table, but yeah, if it breaks things, I'll stop doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SwedenAviator?

I'm guessing this edit is supposed to say, stale socks, as opposed to non-stale socks? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I was clarifying two things. First, I didn't check either the sock you mentioned or any other recently blocked socks, and, second, the new account was confirmed to the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused. If the master is stale, how can it be confirmed? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Stunning picture

Hi Bbb23. Stunning picture on your page. I will be in touch in the week regarding a possible ring of socks. Just need to do some more due diligence, but as I looked you up could not resist commenting on your photo. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much for deleting my page

thank you very much for deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baden-Powell

with the recent death of lord baden-powell and the reshuffle of the family peerage, and since i am now next in line for all the family titles, my dad's cousin put the page about me up. it contains a lot of PII data that i dont want online. so i was trying to think of a diplomatic way to ask him to delete the page, but you saved me the trouble.

so, thanks for that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D4AE:5500:E04A:AC4B:72E0:C964 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Another Baden-Powell for deletion

Hi Bbb23. Just saw the setion above and clicking here and there came upon this bio, which, were it not for the fact that the person is related to a handful of famous Baden-Powells, would never have ben written. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


update by some other guy... actually, he is there because he is the current Lord Baden-Powell. British nobility lineage is worth documenting as it is relevant to english commonwealth countries. maybe its just not not significant wherever you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D4AE:5500:E04A:AC4B:72E0:C964 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The usual

Hey man, thanks for being on top of stuff as usual. I noticed this CU block today. Out of curiosity, when you look for socks of KaranSharma0445, do you by chance often look for Dimpletisha socks? These two are impossible to tell apart, but often run into conflict and/or edit the same stuff. I'm somewhat interested in Mahir D Desai who has a few areas of intersection with previous Dimpletishas, including at MTV Ace of Space, which is an odd one. Also, that user created a template, which was subsequently edited by the KaranSharma0445 sock, so my gnome sense is tingling. If you get any spare time, I'd appreciate if you could consider looking at it. Thanks per usual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I did only a cursory check of Mahir D Desai, and there is no evidence he is a sock. Behaviorally, Dimpletisha and KaranSharma0445 may be similar, but technically they are not. I don't need to concern myself with the niceties of technical details as they edit from different continents.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Restore Deleted Page

Happy 2020! I am delighted that my account has been unblocked. In the Sandbox, I learned that I need to contact you on a previously deleted page titled "Zhu Qizhan" that I created early 2019 and that I want to recreate. FYI, my account was blocked on June 3, 2019. Thank you very much.--C2000fa (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but my assumption is you would like Zhu Qizhan restored, which I've done. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --C2000fa (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help!

Hi! This is KP (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC) . I'm relatively new to Editing articles. I recently tagged a bunch of statements made on the page Jaggi_Vasudev as being [opinion] and not fact, because the articles being cited were not news-reports but opinion and oped pieces. You seemed to have reverted that. Could you help me understand if I got this wrong? If I did, what would be the right way to point out a potential WP:OPINION and WP:BIAS in the section titled "Politics, Religion and Pseudoscience"? Thanks again for helping out a novice! KP (talk)

(talk page watcher) Make a thread on the talk page for every concern. Copy the content (or line) in question to that thread. Then in another line propose your preferred version. Explain your reasons. and work for WP:CONSENSUS--DBigXrayᗙ 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Also read and follow WP:INDENT--DBigXrayᗙ 22:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time out to help me with formatting rules WP:INDENT! Will surely take up your advice on trying to get WP:CONSENSUS! However, looking at the pattern, there seems to be a clear targeted bias, including tag-teamed approaches to vandalism, with yourself included. Case in point, a legitimately agreed upon Wiki norm, non-negotiable fact of calling opinions out as opinions, was reverted, not once, but twice by User:Bbb23, without as much as a courtesy comment. This leads me, or any unbiased onlooker, to believe that this is a pattern of systemic-bullying, and well-coordiated libelous harassment, than good faith. Would you be kind enough to help me out with norms on escalation process about the same? Thanks! :) KP (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you please clarify which 2 editors you are accusing of tag teaming? It is not clear.
Yes, Wikipedia is biased against people who are associated with the subject of the article if they try to convert it into an advertisement. The admins here regularly block such editors for WP:TE --DBigXrayᗙ 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DanJames2020

Hi there, would you be able to do a checkuser on User:DanJames2020 for similarities with User:DJMaina and other known sockpuppets please? This guy doesn't seem to know how to take a hint! – PeeJay 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the user. I will reopen the SPI tomorrow because the master is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking J-Man11

His poor sentence structure and messing of articles is a big give away and requires painful editing/reverting.

BlueD954 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

COIN

Hi Bbb23, Just informing you that KumareshPassoupathi has named you on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clarification_on_CoI but the ping was malformed, so here is a note. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Guess who could not stay away?

Less than 5 days after his block complaint, User: Oknazevad is posting in the very articles he promised to stay away from the Mandalorian rather than risk being blocked or topic-banned from Star Wars-related articles. In his words:

"I am willing to walk away. Frankly, I was getting too hot headed, and drifting into bad territory. I'll stay away from editing both articles for the next couple of monnths. Not all Star Wars articles; the final season of The Clone Wars premiers next month and I'd like to contribute to our coverage of that, and as a life long fan I've had dozens of Star Wars articles on my watchlist for the better part of a decade, so it's ansignificant area of interest for me, but I can see how that is getting in the way of my editing clear-headedly. A block is unneeded, as they're suooosed to be preventative not punitive and I pledge not to edit the contentious articles. I remain unhappy with the pattern of edits I sought to undo, but I can also understand that my behavior i shutting collegiality needed for the project, so I just have to live with it. Of course, if I break my pledge a block will be warranted"<>br

Less than 5 days later, he was back editing the article as if nothing had happened.(1) I am presuming he thinks no one is going to act on a stale promise made at EWN. I would like the user blocked for presenting us with a bold-faced lie to avoid being blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your diff is to a talk page, not an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, note that the initial complaint not only discussed the edit-warring but the civility issues, encountered on both talk pages, article pages and even his own usertalk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
But I guess it isn't really of consequence. If they don't learn from the experience, they will be back and they will probably get blocked for longer because they were given a chance to change, and they didn't use it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird COI editing / socking

Hey BBB, you came across Dede Wilsey a few weeks ago. Summersun77 (talk · contribs) has been slow-mo edit-warring on what appears to be an obvious WP:COI situation - having only edited (spin-doctored) articles about Dede and her son. It now looks like s/he has invoked a sock to continue the edit war, Anonymous0U812 (talk · contribs). Can you keep an eye on this? Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxford2008

While investigating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxford2008, I found these two reversions by you (Sebastian Doggart and Courting Condi) where you removed edits to AfDs by User:212.157.248.162. I get that they're bogus, but we generally don't revert AfD comments, just mark them as socks or WP:SPA or whatever. You also blocked that IP with the comment, "mail server". Could you give some additional explanation? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand why you repeatedly show such poor judgment, particularly at SPI. Although I appreciate your willingness to contribute, you have been acting far more like a clerk than a patrolling administrator, and you are monopolizing the cases, which prevents bona fide clerk trainees from learning. Why on earth did you edit the archive of an SPI? Why do you ask so many weird questions? If it were just once, it would be different, but it's chronic, although not every report. The IP was editing from a mail server and in the manner of an experienced user. I reverted their edits the way I would do with many blocked IPs. Not a big deal, despite your apparent view that it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry you find my involvement to be monopolizing, or my questions weird. I ask questions because I'm trying to understand how things work. As far as I can tell, I'm just doing what's appropriate based on my reading of WP:SPI/AI. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I just came across this thread after adding the section below. To be honest, I'm shocked to learn that you're an admin and want to echo/amplify BBB's concerns about your exceptionally bad judgment. Frankly seeing this edit and then you opening Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ernest_Barttelot_Huffington-Smyth wasting tons of time is just plain stupid. WTF? You knew the article was a hoax and you should have WP:CSD#A11-ed immediately Instead we wasted time on it at AFD and propagated phony info. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit-war - Khruner

Dear Bbb23,

Recently I filed a report on the administrator's noticeboard in regard to an edit-war that occurred less than a month ('2 weeks and a couple of days') ago. I looked into it and noticed A LOT had occurred between the involved parties.

One of the party's behavior had not yet been reviewed because no report was filed yet while the other party got a permanent ban as far I can tell looking at the available information. Considering the severity of the edit-war I thought it would be good to take measures to avoid having such an incident occur again.

It appears you have not reviewed the case for the reason of it being 'stale'. Please explain this for me if you can. Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What other accounts have you had on Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm wondering. A new editor whose first venture outside userspace is to report someone for editwarring with an editor blocked for using multiple accounts? Doug Weller talk 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your concern about my behavior. If you believe my behavior in in violation of community guidelines then please file a report in the appropiate place. As explained before I happened to stumble into this edit war on my favorite page about my ancestor's culture. I see what the other party did to contribute to the page and I saw how Khruner responded. It piqued my interest and as you can see resulted in my report. Could you now also answer my question? Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to "file a report" on your behavior, but you have not answered my question about previous accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

Rangeblock just ended, and right off they're back to this, so the rangeblock on 69.178.192.0/22 needs to be re-applied. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User Biografer

Hello. Given the heartfelt appeal by the user near the bottom of their sockpuppet investigation page, and the productivity, growth, and interest in the project they have shown, can this indef for sockpuppeting be overturned or maybe give them a week slap-on-the-puppet ban but let them return? Seems a possible case for leniency, and they have kind-of thrown themselves on the mercy of the court, which shows commitment to the project. Maybe let's give a sucker an even break on this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no way Mishae is going to be unblocked by anyone for a long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

Who is the master for SCUTI85? I appear to be missing it but I suspect they've returned and will need to file an SPI. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not clear. Complicated history. My preference would be for you to file an SPI naming SCUTI85 as the master. That will give me an opportunity to straighten this out. Please let me know when you've filed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Indeed it does seem complicated as I found a few other overlapping cases. They're definitely a sock though. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
What overlapping cases do you mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yid army

I’m a Jew mate big Tottenham fan a club with a primary Jewish fanbase I can use the word so don’t you go saying it’s a derogatory term when I regularly use it and it’s chanted by thousands of other lads down the lane RossButsy (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't care. Don't use the word on Wikipedia. If I see you do it again, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes sir RossButsy (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:EMPTYCAT

Hi Bbb23,

I always appreciate your discussion contributions, edits, and closes, but I'm curious why you would unilaterally delete my WP:EMPTYCAT shortcut when it's a shortcut that is used, chiefly by me and potentially by others as well, and also since it's consistent with our naming conventions for shortcuts like WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SMALLCAT?

I've made minor, non-controversial bold edits to other Wikipedia project information pages as well, and I've noticed that Levivich has as well. So I don't see why we can't have two shortcuts to a project information section when we do frequently?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed the policy. Once I reverted you, there was no reason for the shortcut.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, But my understanding is that bold edits can occur to any page, so there's nothing restricting me from making that edit. I'm just wondering why you reverted me; other editors and admins make small changes to policies without establishing consensus all the time. Adding a shortcut certainly seems minor to me, particularly when it's consistent with our naming conventions elsewhere and WP:C1 was still the primary shortcut (that is, the first one listed). Now, for major changes to policy, while one can boldly make the change, they are most likely, and understandably, to be reverted. Doug Mehus T·C 19:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have much respect for your judgment in these matters. I agree with JzG that you spend far too much time in project space. Although I have not examined all your edits, the ones I've seen, particularly to ANI, have been unhelpful and borderline disruptive. If you continue in this fashion, you may find yourself sanctioned in some manner. I'd probe your edits more deeply, but, frankly, I'd rather do other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pending sockpuppet investigation

Hi- I filed a sockpuppet investigation that is still pending. I saw a checkuser investigated and its waiting for administration and close. How long do those typically take until these investigations and results get assessed by an admin and closed out with appropriate action as necessary? Thank you. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally a clerk will make the necessary determinations. There is no average length of time for that to happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and the clarification. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

undelete Lincoln School

my page was deleted before i could attach the text to the page. Would u undelete the page and insert the following txt so it won't be deleted again. I will attach the rest of the text. "Lincoln Elementary School stood at 150 W. St Charles Road in Lombard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 0utsider1 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

92.19.29.51

Their two edits don't seem to match any of the familiar LTA's? I mean, it doesn't look like Vote X or the Bonadea nuisance or someone similar. Furthermore, it was their edit which actually started this whole report. Can you indicate which LTA this is supposed to be? Thanks! Fram (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I ran a check, so I can't.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Eldapeeze

Hi Bbb23, thanks for helping out with User:Eldapeeze. Did you find the situation with them because of my report at WP:AN3? If so, do I need to do anything to close that now that you've indef-blocked them? – PeeJay 16:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

An administrator will close the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Niccolò Bonacchi

Hello, the article you deleted is about a swimmer who won a silver medal at the European Championships and a gold medal at the Mediterranean Games. Maybe you were hurrying up and didn't notice. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice what? All the article said was that he was a swimmer. Last time I checked, that is not a credible claim of significance. I swim, too!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The info is rolled up in the infobox. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Ah, you're right, I didn't click on "show". Do you think I should restore it? I wouldn't mind if I knew someone was going to actually work on it because, as is, it sure as hell ain't much. Perhaps restore and move it to draft space?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23. Those rolled-up infoboxes are a pain. I'd agree restoring and draftifying is a good way to go; I don't know how reliable Swimrankings.net is as a sole source for a BLP. Perhaps someone at WP:Swimming might be able to assist? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about the subject. I did look at the source after Blackcat raised the issue here, but I confess I had trouble figuring out what the guy did that was noteworthy (it was a long list). Honestly, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. I'd be happy to draftify it but only if someone is going to take charge of it, at least to bring it up to a mainspace stub. Blackcat, do you have any interest? Unlike me, you edit sports articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
My interest is mainly for rugby union to be sincere. I contacted you on behalf of a fellow Italian Wikipedian who's not as accustomed as me to the English language. He couldn't understand why has been deleted an article about a swimmer who is twice bronze medalist (both at the World and the European championships) and also medalist at 2 editions of the Mediterranean Games. Regards, -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you talking about Dispe, the creator of the article? Why didn't he come here? If I draftified the article, would he work on it? Notable or not, it wasn't ready for mainspace, not even as a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_North_Macedonia

You reverted an edit I added. Just wondering why this was? I did not understand the comment you added to the change. Do you not think extra information on how things have developed is useful for the page. TheChallengeofObjectivity (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

TheChallengeofObjectivity, Essentially, Bbb23 has reason to believe you copied from somewhere else, then just switched words around a bit to make it look unique-ish. You took what someone else wrote, and did the minimal amount of work to make it look like you wrote it. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.). Thanks for the insight. I've only just started this editing "thing", so his comment was a little cryptic for me. I was trying to be as closely referenced/uncontentious as possible. Will have another go at it. Should I undo his rollback and edit or just add in a new version?TheChallengeofObjectivity (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

?

Bothiman? → Slakenger Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Barneybnr (talk · contribs · count) and Lisbonnee (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked on Accounts but not IP

Hi bbb23, my past accounts were blocked around seven months ago, but my IP block expired. If I edit with this IP am I violating the rules? I checked my edit history and I saw that my brother made three edits to video games articles that he likes, and I want to make sure that he wont get me blocked. 184.184.80.114 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Even if your little brother exists and made those edits, you are not allowed to edit, so bye-bye, this time for six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ternera a la llanera

Sorry, I don't understand your reversion and edit summary at all... what do you mean by "don't misuse tags"? That was the correct tag to nominate the article for a speedy deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah wait, I know what you were getting at now... A7 can only be used for the subjects specifically listed, my mistake. I'll send it for PROD then. Richard3120 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Wira_rhea

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Wira_rhea, I'd blocked and was in the process of closing before I saw your comment. Nonetheless, it looked to me like the user needed a short block to curb the behavior. Seem reasonable to you? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Followup; on further consideration, decided that a final warning before blocking made more sense. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sunshine Mall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sunshine Mall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Working backward toward a master?

Hi B, I'm looking into what I think is a paid editing agenda at Shrenu Parikh and I think I'm a little late to the game to figure out who the proper master is. Currently I suspect Crazy Angel111 as problematic. Based on these edits, we see the addition of "Transmedia Awards", "Gujrati Iconic Film Awards", and "Saas Bahu Aur Betiyaan Awards". All unsourced. Based on my experience in the Indian entertainment area, none of these stand out as notable, i.e. they seem like promotional award fluff. Looking back through the edit history, in June 2019, I notice throw-away account Gghhjj vgh making these edits, where they add the Transmedia Award, GIFA, which has to be the Gujarati Iconic Film Awards, as well as Saas Bahu Aur Saazish Telecelebrations, which is very similar to the ones that the new Crazy Angel111 has submitted. All unsourced as well. Also in July 2019 throwaway account Yuujh made these changes, adding GIFA and Transmedia Awards. So what I know is that there were a host of throwaway accounts, Gghhhjj vgh, Yuujh, Good bpy (maybe), Ghhh gg (September 2019), Yyh yuuu (October 2019), all of whom seem to exist to edit that article and ones related to Parikh, hence my suspicion of Crazy Angel111. Is there any way to wrangle some of these back into the drawer? I know some will be stale for sure. I'm also happy to open an SPI as usual, I just don't know what master to indicate. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There's not much to see because of the staleness problem. CA doesn't appear to be Yyh yuuu, which is the only one I know about, and there's no evidence of them socking based solely on their edits now.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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. 1tompatti (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have spent hours of time trying to clean up my page but it's been erased because I'm me.  I sent you an email in some other fashion but this is all very confusing

Tom Patti1tompatti (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've responded on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism level 4 after a single edit

As far as I can see in the user's contribution: Special:Contributions/Chad12345654321, he made just one edit, which looks more like a joke than a serious vandalism. And you have immediately crushed him with {{Uw-vandalism4im}} {Special:Permalink/936884899):

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again.......

Was it really necessary? Was the edit that dangerous? What happened to Warning Levels 1–4, are they not in use any more...? --CiaPan (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The user is a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Refund Elizabeth Searcy?

Hello! I guess I fell for the newbie act being played by User:ArtWorldEditor, who was blocked for socking. I helped edit and publish Elizabeth Searcy, who seemed reasonably notable. Based on my contribs to the article, would you consider refunding it? Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

KillerGho$t

Hey Bbb23. It didn't take them too long. Hope you don't mind me coming back here and I probably don't need to go to the amount of effort I went to last time considering your comment then about the amount of work I went to. If you would prefer an official SPI just say the word. Again, the most recent prolific sock TrackerMercurial136 vs DynamicPanther624, the most recent.

The names are, as most cases seem to be, two capitalized words joined with 3 numbers at the end:

  • DynamicPanther624
  • GildedPhantom175
  • TrackerMercurial136
  • DaFuze164
  • AerobicThyme928
  • MethodMaster101

Edits by TM136 vs DP624

EIA

Editor Interaction Analyser shows many similar articles as well as many similar edits being made.

Please let me know if this should go to SPI or whether you require more diffs. Many thanks. Robvanvee 11:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Robvanvee 14:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Only 2 edits in (at this point) and I'll bet our old friend is back, this time under the moniker FanaticalBizarro246. The user name again, 2 separate capitalised words followed by 3 numbers, thereby following the socks naming pattern. 2 edits to Beastie Boys related articles, an article edited by previous sock TrackerMercurial136. Then there is the area of article that is being edited; dates of birth, years active and locations. These of course were mentioned in our previous conversation above and in our archived conversation as being a favoured area of past KillerGho$t socks. Another clue: long descriptive edit summaries. But the real clincher for me is this little detail: note how when sourcing, they all use the authors surname as the <ref name=""> as opposed to the publications name or otherwise:

Again, just say the word if you'd prefer this to go to SPI. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As always, much appreciated! Robvanvee 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
...And here we go again (I'm rather certain). In accordance with previous naming trends we find today's sock going by OpticalConqueror278 and as with several previous fiends, this one too likes to have a go at Eminem articles (here is past sock, TM136 editing there), indulges in detailed and articulated edit summaries and has a taste for date changes as well as location tweaks. Can dig deeper if needed. Robvanvee 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Robvanvee: Blocked. In the future, please start a new thread for each sock. Otherwise, this thread will never archive, at least not at the rate of account creation lately. :( Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah hadn't thought of that. Will do and thanks for the assistance. Robvanvee 16:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor question, ignore if busy

I recently filed an obvious SPI to one master, but while cleaning up I noticed that cited master and 2 subsequent socks are probably all socks of a previously blocked account with its own SPI archive. Since they're all blocked anyway, and the behavioral pattern will make them easy to spot and block in future, does it actually matter whether the more recent ones are tied to the earlier ones or not? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You should put a note in your report about the relationship so a clerk can merge the report if appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You don't say what report. You can't do what I say if the report is already archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed but not archived, so I left a note: [8]. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll see this anyway, but I added some evidence while doing something else IRL and forgot to ping you. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ear-phone unblock discussion at AN

Hi,

Thanks for your email response regarding this user. Just to let you know, I've opened a discussion about this here.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Because I kept getting pinged, I finally, and somewhat reluctantly, commented. BTW, please use the male pronoun for me. I disclose my gender mainly because I hate gender-neutral plural pronouns. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Haha no worries. Hope you're well -- 5 albert square (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

EEIHAJ 1

Media: Use:EEIHAJ 1 Untuk Indonesia Manda --125.161.104.28 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I a sock magnet?

That was an hour of my life wasted I won't get back!

I began to get suspicious after the exaggerated uselessness claim, followed by a barnstar. Were you watching my talk page, or did Alpha row come to your attention some other way? Thanks for blocking - I seem to spend half my time teaching sock puppets how to do stuff the little b**gers already clearly know! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah, scrub that. Just checked their edit history. Looks like I actually taught the little scoundrel how to revert you. (Shame he missed my WP:TH advice about leaving an edit summary!) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL. Shamsheer Vayalil is more of a "sock magnet" than you. You can get the hour back. A la I Love Lucy, set your clock back an hour. Of course, then you'll have to wait an extra hour to become an administrator. Speaking of admins, my favorite sock magnet is Oshwah. I tease him because he AGFs almost all new users, no matter how suspicious they are. I watch his Talk page and find lots of socks that way. I sometimes think he's more productive than SPI (Hi Oshwah!).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, nice one. Maybe later, when/if I get my feet under the table, I might, as I said at RfA, consider learning more about the SPI process and helping out there. But that's way off in the future. It is funny, though, how one gets a sense, but I don't like to accuse too early, either. It's good to have a few CUs watching our backs. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)  
And the teasing that gets sent my way is well deserved... :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kha tatti kha/Archive

Hi 3B, this guy appears to have flared up again. Can you take a look. I know the older socks are probably stale, but looking at the recent edits here at their favourite haunt, I see the names SemenjeetSinghSemen, Sperminder, Latrinjeet. The semen-based socks are ducky compared to SemenLapudi and SemenjeetSinghSperminder from the last set. Since it looks like they're just creating accounts en masse, I was hoping you could find any that are related to the new batch. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear BC, do you really have to remind me?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hello, I am reaching out to you as you were the admin who decided the results over here. I took your warning to heart: I've been making more clear edit summaries and have posted on US roads wikproject talk page as well as on a couple article talk pages in an effort to gain consensus and/or explain potentially controversial changes I am making. I'm not sure if this other user's behavior is reaching inappropriate levels or not or whether I should to take action.

For context: mileposts in USRD junction lists are usually referenced from state transportation department documents. When these documents do not list a certain milepost, editors often use Google Maps in its place. But Google Maps only has one decimal point of precision, while state records generally have two or three. It therefore is imprecise to add extra zeros to Google Maps mileposts with the argument of maintaining consistency among the list mileposts, as its adding incorrect information (0.7 and 0.70 imply different levels of precision). I've attempted to explain this and the user does not seem to accept this as valid information. Do you have any advice for how to proceed here? I do not want to keep reverting their changes as I would like to not be involved in an edit war or risk getting blocked myself. As someone who does not seem to be directly involved in this wikiproject, I appreciate any advice you have. Best regards — C16SH (speak up) 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Inasmuch as you and the other editor seem to be clashing on multiple pages, I suggest you try to enlist help at the project Talk page. I glanced at the link to the discussion there from earlier this month. Perhaps you should continue that discussion and notify the other editor of it at the same time. These kinds of disputes are not easily resolved given the forums we have at Wikipedia. If you think you have enough evidence of misconduct by the other user, another option is WP:ANI. However, ANI tends to shy away from disputes like this often deeming them content disputes, and your behavior would also be scrutinized. I have no idea who's right or wrong, if indeed there is a right answer. There are editors who specialize in US road articles; I don't even look at the articles unless I need to as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Duly noted, thanks for your response.— C16SH (speak up) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sniff

Hey man, PunjabCinema07 is making my nose wrinkle as a possible sock of indeffed UPE suspect, Meeanaya. Right now Punjab has been blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring, but there are other things odd.

  1. Account created in November 2019, but mostly poked around until ka-bam, January 22nd when they make a few edits to a draft, then file a BLP/N case about an article that they had previously never edited, and where there has been some previous dispute/coverup about the subject's legal problems. Odd to have a problem about a subject, the history of which you're not likely to have experienced.
  2. Why does the new user want to use AWB? Also, why is that request incoherent when the rest of their talk page posts seem to be the opposite?
  3. Why are most of their most recent edits automated reference cleanup via #IABot? That's a strange thing for a new user to want to do. That looks like someone trying to make a ton of edits in different articles perhaps to make their interests look more diverse or to bury their edit history.

Anyhow, that article Gurbaksh Chahal has a recent history of blocked editors and I can't help but think this new character might be related to at least one of them. If you could look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not Meeanaya. Can't find any evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Tesco Carrier Bag

Hi Bbb23, this user's edit pattern appears suspicious to me, particularly their (admittedly rare) edit summaries. Would you mind checking if they are a sockpuppet of DJdjPollard15 please? – PeeJay 14:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
How about User:DJDanMoore2020? – PeeJay 07:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Better. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Account

Hi, I was making edits from an IP address (108.21.182.146) and have now created this account. I will no longer be making any edits from that IP account. I wanted to self report in case I am later (falsely) accused of sockpuppetry. Thanks.FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Vox araneae

Sorry to trouble you, but if you have a moment could you please look at Vox araneae? They seem to be a SPA (and not the only one on the article in question). My first thought was to block as WP:NOTHERE but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Please ping me if you reply. Thank you.--kingboyk (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be thick, but what does that mean? Did you perform a checkuser? --kingboyk (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it means that Vox araneae and Trollcleaner are not the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks

I have never used one as yet. Do you have a specific concern? In the AN3 case now open, it would have almost the same effect as a two-sided editing restriction from the articles, which might yet be agreed to with enough patience. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as the two editors are sanctioned, you should do what you think best and disregard my antipathy to partial blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion of closing the AFD I started

As the nominator of for AFD I am able to close it as speedy keep or keep per WP:NACD as long as there were no delete votes besides mine or did I misread that? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware of that exception. You can go ahead and close it again. However, please mark it as a non-admin closure and update the article Talk page properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

'Jaggi Vasudev' page is being discussed on Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

Dear @Bbb23:

I wanted to let you know that there is a new discussion on the BLP Noticeboard regarding potential vandalism and other issues on the Jaggi Vasudev. As an Admin has been involved with the page, thought you may want to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jaggi_Vasudev

Thanks,

Jp7311 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

KillerGho$t yet again

Hi again Bbb23. I suspect they have been watching your talk page (perhaps due to you being the most common blocking admin lately) as the name has changed slightly. Instead of the usual 2 joined capitalised words ending with 3 numbers, they seem to opted for Chromatic Leopard this time. They are however still:

As always, say the word if you'd prefer to see this at SPI. Thanks. Robvanvee 06:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Robvanvee 18:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nazir Josh

hii, were references i have added in this article dont meet with wikipedia criteria? Ttttt321 (talk). 14:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_51&oldid=1093893407"