User talk:Bbb23/Archive 32

Cardone

Can you explain why the piece of Cardone's real estate holdings were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.126.144 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Investopedia is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. I don't know - I would think Investopedia would be a reliable source. Regardless, there is a lack of information on Cardone's real estate transactions which are sizable. See 209.59.126.144 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

comment: Other wikias are unreliable sources because of the constantly evolving nature of other wikias' pages due to constant editing by "everyone."--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Investopedia is not a wikia. It is not possible for just anyone to contribute to the website. Ignoring that I referenced three other links speaking about Cardone's acquisitions. Just submitting for consideration. 209.59.126.144 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Cardone's holdings are even relevant to his notability. He's supposed to be a motivational speaker and author. However, if you were going to put in each of the acquisitions you cite, you'd put them in the body (not the lead), and make sure they specify a date as to when he acquired each. Otherwise, it's misleading in terms of whether he still holds them. I'm not saying I agree with putting them in, so perhaps the best thing for you to do is to start a topic at the Cardone Talk page and seek input from other editors. Much better than on my Talk page, although I appreciate your courtesy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• This article is surprisingly not terrible for an article on a motivational speaker. Real estate holdings, out. Even if properly verified, the guy's not Trump, and the only reason to include it is to show off. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Another Kbabej SPI

I just filed another SPI for a suspected Kbabej sock, but something went haywire with the filing. Elements of the report page are missing, it's not registering as asking for a CU and as far as I can see, it's not listed on the SPI report page, either. Report filing is here [1]. Help, please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strange--I had problems today with AfD closings, which weren't done properly once or twice. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Full moon. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Structurally, if the reports aren't created properly, they have trouble closing and particularly archiving. I fixed it, but I'm not going to delve into the history to see what went awry as I have a few other things to do before hitting the hay.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I know it wasn't anything I did. I filed it through the drop down ARV menu. A few days ago, when I was filing another one, I got error messages on two tries. Something's not right somewhere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would report the problem on the Twinkle Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrozenFan2/Archive

I can't really follow what was going on in the discussion you hatted, but maybe I need to eat a bit more--breakfast was a bit Spartan. Just 32 days until football starts, Bbb--I know you're thrilled. I propose that TParis and Volunteer Marek be invited too, but let's not put TParis in charge of beer acquisition (I'm sure he's all Miller Lite). Oh, and no Ohio State fans, who are morally corrupt and don't brush their teeth, besides even more unmentionable offenses: Tide rolls and Alarob agree, no doubt, as would AuburnPilot (I hope). Bbb, who do you think is going to take the SEC? I value your opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Mary Jo White stepping down? MarnetteD was giving the SPI clerk a lot of grief, and although he can take care of himself, he shouldn't have to fight with editors like that and she wouldn't let go. Plus she was wrong on several fronts. Consensus controls SPI. Give me a break. I corrected your Volunteer Marek typo above, but he won't get the notification (my correction doesn't make it happen). Are you having fun blocking socks yet?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23. FYI I am a man. Please be aware of that when referring to me in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 15:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is an Auburn fan anyway, so he's beyond correction. They were ranked #7 pre-season, no doubt the act of a benevolent god against her better judgment. What socks do you want me to block? It'll have to wait; I have to go grocery shopping. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. Auburn always plays better when they're underrated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Then being ranked #7 is not a good sign, dear volunteer. Ha, I made the mistake of referring to Chizik as the AU coach the other day, in some Facebook dramah thread. Chizik, Malzahn--damn furriners. At least Saban has a good old American name. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hah. I'm pretty sure "Saban" is a French name. That's right, French! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I just got back from the market. I "had" to buy this little jar of natural sweetener, and it "had" to be organic, and the damned thing cost $10 (I don't use this stuff just in case you care). When you get back from the market, block all the socks.

Sorry, MarnetteD, I'll try to remember. You'd think if I'm going to say unflattering things about you, I'd at least get your gender right. BTW, did you notice the sock of Jaredgk2008 acting like he was FrozenFan2? I reverted a few of the sock's in articles you were involved in. I should at least some credit for that, right? Jaredgk2008 is a sneaky thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely Bbb23! I saw that this morning (my time anyway) so many thanks for your work. On top of all that, as you noted at the SPI, TheCrazyGuy6, another FF2 sock, showed up as things were winding down last night. I sure hope those two aren't on Skype (or something similar) telling each other which articles to mess with. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

TCG6 (I like doing the abbrev :) ) is claiming "Ebaybe and MarnetteD" are "bulling" and "stocking" them, and that we should be blocked for harassing them. Except I'm Ebyabe, so I don't know who they could be talking about. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 23:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Miller Lite? I'm offended. For your information, I drink Kona Big Wave.--v/r - TP 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • TParis, quick, open one, and pop on over to ESPN, where the Tide is playing Missouri for the SEC. Very exciting game, no one can tell how it will end. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • How did you manage to turn my talk page into a sports bar, Drmies? God you're crafty.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Well, this is the reason why I'm sure about my last SPI report. See this recent racist commentary. diif1. One of those suspected accounts. That edit is similar to those comments on talk page. I think it's better to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iranmehr27 case. --Zyma (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The report is not closed. Feel free to add more relevant evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hello! So what is this sockpuppet thing, I just received a random wikipedia noticement. About some HarveyCarter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomlini (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jomlini: I don't see any notification to you about HarveyCarter, but you can see what I did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they decided that I'm not a sockpuppet, but could you please explain me who/what is Harvey Carter? Jomlini (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an easy question to answer. If you wish you can look at that page and see what others say about his activities. You can also, of course, look at his contributions and those of his socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Crazy. So Harvey Carter is not a usual "insult" for a sockpuppet, it is a real person?! Have you guys seriously been tracking a single person for over 6 years in a huge investigations, amazing. After a Calidum called me Harvey in one of our conversations I tried to look it up in urban dictionary etc. But didn't find anything, so I thought it was somekind of insult.. Jomlini (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh, no, it's an account, and accounts belong to people. Your reaction to being called a "Harvey", though, is very amusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, I've been engaged in another edit war with Special:Contributions/199.116.175.123, whom I believe is a sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/199.116.175.94 (the same person I got into trouble with last time.) So first I'd like to turn myself in and get that block. (Since you got to do it the last time, I thought it'd be easier just to come back to you.)

Second, do you have any suggestions how I might deal with that other editor in the future? I've tried (perhaps belately) trying to use the talk page (like Talk:Type_054A_frigate), but my concerns are just ignored by the other editor. Claims that Chinese sources are automatically superior, the abundant use of non-English sources (which makes it difficult to assess sources that might begin to meet reliability criteria), his seeming less-than-stellar comprehension of English, and the constant IP jumping (I think there are a number of IPs around there that are being used right now), makes it difficult to impossible to engage. I am at a loss.

Thanks for your attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to look into this more closely, and that includes blocking you, assuming you deserve it. Just a couple of general points. There's nothing wrong with one person using many different IP addresses, as long as that person isn't trying to claim that each IP is being used by a different person. Obviously, when it comes to edit-warring, if the administrator believes that two reverts by two different IP addresses should count against one person, that would be how it would be counted. As for dealing with IPs, unless you believe that the edits by the IPs are bad enough to warrant semi-protection, all you can do is the usual dispute resolution. Otherwise, you may get in trouble. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for bothering you, then. I shall definitely look in DR then. Thanks! - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Cohen (magician)

Note IP "magically appearing" after BLP is unprotected. Collect (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi B, I'm trying to help out with the SPI backlog but I could use some advice since I'm still getting my admin chops. Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TEAMSAMADI, I've indeffed Thewatchfulobserver as a proven sock. I've blocked TEAMSAMADI for 2 weeks. I'm a little worried that this might be a bad call and that I should indef him instead, so I'm curious to get your feedback. I'm also not sure what I should do with the other accounts Panteliscy and Iria iona since the CU didn't link them to the others (or to each other really). I could indef the both as SPAs since they both appear here to promote the article's subject. They both added the same content here and here. Sorry if this is n00b stuff, but I'm a n00b and I want to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Sorry I wasn't around to help. It looks like what to do with the other two accounts has been resolved reasonably. As for the master, the practice by most around here is not to indef a master on a first offense unless the administrator believes it's justified. How long to block (or even just warn) a master is discretionary. When I block a master indefinitely on a first offense, it's usually because I've determined that the user has clearly shown they have nothing useful to contribute to the project and I give a brief explanation in my comments at the SPI. Obviously, a vandalism account should be indeffed, but I'm talking about something short of that. Even if in this case you should have indeffed the master, it would bother me to change the block to indef just because you reconsidered. It's not unheard of, but I personally find it disturbing. If the user deserves to be indefinitely blocked, it will become apparent either based on their comments on their Talk page during the block or after expiration of the block. I have not looked specifically at this master. I hope this helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Please consider this an open invitation to offer advice when you think I need it. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Air Juan

Hi Bbb23, I'm Wjkxy. Do you remind me? It's strange to talk to you after my block, but I have a doubt about a small airline in philippines. I was reading the page of an airport and I discovered this airline, but I noticed there wasn't a page about it. I found your message here. Why did you deleted that page? I don't think it is unnecessary but you surely know wikipedia better than me. Can you explain me the reason of your deletion? Thank you very much Wjkxy (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wjkxy: It was tagged WP:CSD#A7. I agreed with the tag and deleted it. If you think it has more notability than was apparent at the time, I can WP:USERFY it for you so you can improve it. However, be aware that an airline is not inherently notable. In other words, just because the airline exists doesn't mean it should have an article here. Let me know if you want me to move it to your user space.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I took a look at Air Juan website and now I agree with you that we don't need a page offerte this airline. For example although I'm an expert in aviation, I couldn't understand if this airline uses airplanes or seaplanes for its service, and flights are not bookable. Thank You

Wjkxy (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page about this, demonstrating (I believe) that there is no wording for the infobox result which all editors like (including "leave it blank").

I have recently made a suggestion which all but one responding editors regard as tolerable. As far as I know this is the least loathed suggestion so far. (The remaining editor, ZinedineZidane98, has just accused me of being a liar after I went in search of additional sources and found an answer they didn't like).

I don't think it is unreasonable to put this suggestion in as the best known compromise, but I'm willing to bet that if I do, that same editor will revert it.

What happens then? I'd be grateful if you would review the talk page and say if you think I would be acting reasonably in making this edit. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A request

Obviously, please feel free to say "no", but if you have time and interest, and if you haven't done so already, could you read the thread Help on AN/I, specifically the last section Another side of the street. If I'm totally off base, I'll pull back entirely, but the whole thing doesn't sit right with me, the psychology just doesn't make much sense. I've had no previous connection with the editors involved. Thanks for your consideration. BMK (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I have no vested interest here. I'll apologize to all involved. BMK (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, darn, just saw your note on the top of the page. Well, as Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say "Never mind". BMK (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Why is it I enjoy talking to you even when I don't? :-) ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, a number of people have told me that I'm at my best when I'm not there. BMK (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Evlekis/Pumpkin

Hello. He's at it again, check the original version of The CMO Survey, point #2 under "Samples". An article created by Burjeremonz. Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the block. Would you mind deleting User talk:Burjeremonz, or at least most of the history of it, to get rid of the edit summaries etc there? Thomas.W ^talk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

More work for you: A spider shark is per this edit also an Evlekis sock (check the middle of the paragraph starting with "As a result of this report"), and so is Grumbling Tommy per this edit (see Episode #3 in the list). And since I've got some more material to check there might be more to come...Thomas.W ^talk 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nice catch, should slow him down for a few days. Thomas.W ^talk 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• And a new one today: Martin Cold Mans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with all the usual "joke" edits in articles (sample), plus a new trick (read the "poem" on their user page, forming new words from just the capitalised first letter of each word...). Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

...and I suspect another here from a close Italian cousin. A look at The purpose of the Circus with Purpose" provides a clue to his sockiness and to yourself.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Latino Ricardo is most definitely an Evlekis sock (check the "The purpose of the Circus with Purpose" section of Circus With Purpose, as it was when the article was created). Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, everything is done. There's an irony about Latino Ricardo. The account came up in a previous check I ran as what I call a throwaway, meaning an account with no edits. I block such accounts if I'm confident that the account belongs to a particular master. I was in this case, but I had a bunch, and some of them were problematic, and I forgot to block Latino Ricardo. He obviously began editing after my first check. Now if you could give me a break until at least tomorrow my time, that would be welcome. Also, please try to prioritize your suspected accounts. For example, Martin Cold Mans was an obvious vandal. Even after he was blocked, I had to revoke talk page access and then delete some of his offensive edits. Blocking such an account is more urgent, whereas blocking Latino Ricardo based on his edits thus far, which were merely annoying, was not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User Adilswati misuse of talk pages and on/off wiki collabration with Pashtun nationalists to edit war over language map

Reported user is edit warring on diffrent articles of province Khyber pakhtunkhwa and want to place a map showing pashto even in distrcits where other languages are spoken. Please see his contributions [2]. He is also inviting other pashtun nationalist users Number one User: Tigerkhan007 [3] and writing openly against Punjabi and Hindkos. He said also invite friends to fight punjabiz. Number 2 User: Usman khan being instructed in Pashto to use diffrent IPs mobile phones even girl friends mobile internet to thrash Punjabiz [4] and sharing of face book account to disscuss stratergy privatly [5]. Number 3 User Adjutor101 On his talk page he is using offensive wording like Tusi / tuso for Punjabi / Hindko people see [6] Number 4 on User Jasimkhanum10 he advises "baghair login la editing kawa" which means do editing with out log in. bcoz Jasimkhanum was Topic ban for three months, Intrestingly he followed instructions and got ban for socking for one week. see [7] [8] Dirty Abuses in pashto against Hindko / Punjabiz. You can consult pashtun speaker for translations and read his Pashto contributions all over. I have just given few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.246.29 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr Shidaa

I noticed that you blocked User:Dr Shidaa as "checkuserblock-account". Not a clue what that exactly means but I guess a sockpuppet of someone. Interestin enough, a new account User:Kulaboi is now continuing where Dr Shidaa was stopped. This is quacking with the noise level of a rock concert... The Banner talk 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the quacking, but, unfortunately, the issue is more complicated - would that it weren't. Please let me know if the user becomes more disruptive. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	CU Extraordinare Barnstar
	Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia free of sockpuppets and other undesirables. Your effort is much appreciated! - MrX 14:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: You're welcome. It's an interesting turn of events, isn't it? It looks like we have two masters both battling in the same subject area. Not the first time, of course, but it does make things a bit tougher to determine which case to reopen when you think there's a new puppet. Whatever you decide, assuming we do separate the cases out, you should always cross-reference the other to alert others, and especially checkusers, to the possibilities.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

A few days ago you permanently blocked Jecoman as the result of a sock investigation I initiated. Mind doing the same for Jecomanisback ? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Whakaoriori

Please can you look into this edit. Which appears to be the confessions of a sock of a user you inf blocked.

I picked this up from a conversation at WT:RM#Policy query -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS, blocked. I'm going through the article creations to determine which ones to G5. Tedious process as I don't automatically delete them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Miss Iraq deletion page

Dear Bbb23,

Its very important for us that you post back the "Final Comments" on the page you just edited and moved to our separate Sockpuppet request.

They are crucial to the discussion for the deletion of this page.

We thought that the "Deletion page" was created to "Communicate" our points, then why move the information?

Please at least post back our Final Comments. Pageantscambuster (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Did you see the page "Bureaucratic Fuck" on Encyclopedia Dramatica? I haven't seen that website in a long time, but you must have blocked someone who took it personally and had an immature hissy fit. Searching "Bbb23" actually gets several results. You were apparently added by someone going by "Lavrentiy Beria (Jr)" back in March- any idea who that is? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I'm in good company. It's pretty gross. Makes Wikipediocracy, which I don't pay attention to unless someone asks me to, look like an Emily Post love fest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean... holy shit. There are pages where people whine about specific Wikipedia users that step on their toes. I found out about it when I was reading a Wikipediocracy thread that mentioned a section about you, so I checked it out and indeed, you're listed, complete with an alleged picture of you. After searching your name, I found that you had been mentioned an entire FOUR times on the pages for Bureaucratic Fuck, Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia Admin Gallery and AmericanDad86 (pinging that last one because he's a cool guy I haven't heard from in a while)! But goddamn, it's disgusting. And the worst part? You can't really do anything about it. I've tried. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DarthBotto, you rock the house. As for Encyclopedia Dramatica Users who try to get back at people, I thought they're page for me was cute. I have promoted it in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like my help in promoting it is giving the page anymore hits. No one has even edited it or said anything bad about me past its origination from the first user. :( If you're going to troll somebody, at least stay consistent and don't fall off your horse. Hopefully, they're reading this and get on it over there! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, AmericanDad86! Yeah, while it was funny to look at pages and laugh as a teenager, nowadays all the pages are about specific Wikipedia users, created by stupid users who were banned and want revenge on a topic nobody cares about. Like Bbb23, Drmies and Kww, you don't deserve to be ridiculed there. Anyways, yeah, great to hear from you man! I'm not nearly as active on Wikipedia anymore, as my free time is going to furthering my film career, (keep an eye on me on IMDb), but it's good to check in once a blue moon and see how things are doing. Take care! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Awww! Bless you User:DarthBotto. Those comments are warmly embraced. And hey! Congratulations on pursuing your dreams in film. Where are you exactly in your pursuit? Do independent film in the projects yet that you're passing along to producers? I'll be sure to follow your path, which I am sure with your determination will be successful. I myself haven't been spending as much time here on Wikipedia either because I have been focusing on my animated YouTube cartoon series, which has drawn quite a lot of hits. One of my dreams is to land a career in animations and I have a nice little portfolio of cartoons on YouTube now. Another big dream of mine is to be a television host, commentator, or announcer in some way. That's why I got my Bachelor of Science Degree in Journalism and Communications. I know our dreams don't exactly intersect, but they are both media-related, so perhaps we could collaborate to some degree. Either way, good luck to you and I will be sure to support! =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are a great admin

Err.. with regards to this edit [9]. I like you and have a great deal of respect for you. We had the feud going once upon a time when I first arrived on the seen and we didn't get each other, but I thought that we had long buried that hatchet and developed an admiration for each other. I am unsure why you feel as if I don't like you. I don't feel I have done anything in the recent pass to suggest this? You are a very respectable admin as far as I am concerned, Bbb23. It is just my honest opinion that User:Drmies is not. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@AmericanDad86: It's true that our dispute was a long time ago, but I, apparently mistakenly, thought that you were still pissed at the end of it. Maybe my memory is faulty. In any event, thanks for the post and the kind words. You might want to step back from your dispute with Drmies and look at what happened a bit differently. It's rather common for a post such as yours to be removed from the Talk page of a sanctioned user. I seriously doubt it was directed at you personally. FWIW, in my opinion Drmies is one of the best administrators here, even though he did have the bad sense to nominate me for admin. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Bbb23. I respect your opinion about User Drmies. Maybe he has another side about him I have never seen. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis is back

Hello. Our friend is back: Special:Contributions/82.214.103.10. Note this earlier edit[10] where he admits to being Asdidis. Now back to the exact same stuff[11]. I am directly involved in a content dispute on the page, could you handle this please? Chillum 16:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you are not editing right now I will just post at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion. Thanks. Chillum 18:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tzufun

Hello. Could you take another look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tzufun? The previous CU revealed a lot of other fresh accounts. Cheers and thanks for your help with all the other SPIs recently! SmartSE (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Armenia DS question

So related to the little drama on my talk page (thanks btw), editor goes into Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to post some badly-sourced POV and starts inserting Armenia-related material into say Andre Agassi and whatnot, does that mean they should be warned about the DS around Armenia? I ask because they haven't actually and directly edited any Armenia articles. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, they did edit Armenia directly, so together with the rest of their edits DS was appropriate and has been issued. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GammaCepheus001/Archive

Thank you for addressing the Nomoonman sockpuppet investigation. Now that he is linked to GammaCepheus001, and I have had a chance to review GammaCepheus001's edit history, I have a suspicion that the sock master for this whole group is actually User:Jonas Poole. Besides a shared interest in cetaceans, both GammaCepheus001 and User:Jonas Poole have a particular interest in History of Whaling and Timeline of European exploration. [12] GammaCepheus001 has also edited the article on the actual Jonas Poole. And Nomoonman's penchant for insulting editors he disagrees with is reminiscent of Jonas' interactions with other editors. And Jonas too has a large stable of confirmed sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonas Poole. So you may want to check into whether both these sock groups are linked. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rlendog: I don't see any confirmed puppets that are not stale. That doesn't mean you can't raise the issue at SPI on behavior, though. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:MusicAngels

Would you take a look at the pages created by User:MusicAngels and his/her activity in creating large pages unilaterally and then blocking others from editing, deleting conversation on talk pages, and mostly being an ass?128.90.39.137 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: It appears that you are dealing with these spats. I'll leave you to it if that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I honestly don't know too much about these "vanity pages" the user supposedly has created, but I did chew them out for removing perfectly constructive comments from mainspace talk pages by anonymous users justifiably attempting to engage in discussion. Probably some ownership, but I don't want to invest anymore energy into this, and neither does Bbb23. To 128.90.39.137, I'd say if you are so inclined, bring it to WP:AN/I and let the professionals handle it. State your case and I will comment with what I do know — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no copyright violations of any kind in the article which fully attributes all of its many citations. The policy about valid forms of using old material in Wikipedia in new articles which have been reviewed and patrolled by WikiProjects and WikiPartrol are documented in WP:CWW (Copying within wikipedia) and in WP:Forking for Valid forms of use of old material within wikipedia. There is no copyright violation anywhere in the article of any kind and I have gone out of my way to bring the references up to date and ensuring that the links are working. Any flags for copyright violations should be removed since there is no copyright violation in the reviewed article of any kind. MusicAngels (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the loop

This is this. And yes, the answer to your question in the block rationale is "both".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms

Acronym contains many links to commercial resources (e.g., dictionaries, servers with heavy advertising), but MAX - My Acronym eXtractor has just been deleted. It is on topic and is identified as a sponsored edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaddock (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You're quick

I just want to say "good job" to everyone involved in the "donut sock" investigation: From my first report to your block of the master plus eight socks appears to have taken just two hours. Regarding the two questionable accounts, I have watches on them and will monitor for inappropriate activity, but I don't expect to see any. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: Thanks for your kind words, and I appreciate your monitoring the other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL I've got the easy part! You all get to keep investigating other socks and masters, over and over again. I'm just watching a couple of accounts that showed some technical similarities to a known sock-master. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, accidental

Yes, it was totally accidental. Damned touch screens, anyway. Thanks for fixing it. My apologies for any inconvenience or confusion, MarnetteD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Salamuddin.Shaikh89 + 1

Hello Bbb23, I have added another note about an additional sock account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salamuddin.Shaikh89, but am not quite sure if that was the correct way to do it in a "closed" case page. It would be great, if you could have a look (or fix my mess, if needed ...). Many thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe, usually a new SPI investigation is opened below the closed one (if you use Twinkle, it does it for you automatically). I was looking to "un-close" the close I'd done, but this account is stale so I haven't done that. As you've noted it here, I'll let Bbb23 decide what to do finally. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the mixup - I have Twinkle so I'll know it for the next time now. Thanks to both of you. GermanJoe (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SpacemanSpiff, I was commenting at the SPI when you were posting your message here. I punted it to you. Procedurally, you're correct about adding the report in a new case, but it's no biggie. Unclosing is easy. If you want to put it back in the last status before you closed it, you just change the status from close to whatever it was. If for some reason you want it to be open again, you leave the status blank: {{SPI case status|}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, after my post here I was out comparing the logs, so this is obviously connected to one of the confirmed ones from the earlier list, so I've blocked referring that. No sock tag yet, I think this needs a deeper investigation of who the PR agency is, it's quite obvious there's one and all real names and photographs used, so no outing issues there. Right Bbb, didn't mean to be very bureaucratic and all, but the twinkle new SPI is typically the easiest way for technology neophytes like me, so I suggest that. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You weren't being bureaucratic; you were right. However, it's not like users don't make the same good-faith mistake GermanJoe did, and in this instance I chose not to enforce procedural correctness. Don't think of that as a precedent. :-) And there's no harm in doing all this while the case is in a closed status. A clerk won't archive a case if they see there are still things going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it :), another note: Checking through the image uploads for the blocked S.S. users, the images were uploaded by Joylinford89 (talk · contribs) who is listed as sock in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla/Archive (see also file upload info of File:Salman Shaikh.jpg). ==> That seems to indicate, that the 2 cases are just one and the same group (you'll also notice several similar usernames and phrases between both sock listings). Seems like those "contributions" happened already before 2014. GermanJoe (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did expect this as per my closing note. It looks to be the same, but IMO it's a group of editors, not one person. Not very unlike the Smileverse or Kabir Vaghela SPIs. On an related note, I don't nominate some of these unique pictures for deletion on Commons as they serve as an easy link. I'll note your finding on the SPI along with my confirmationand leave it for the clerk/CU to decide if they want to merge the two. —SpacemanSpiff 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar

Please re-verify your revert here. My edit included the nationality and not just flag but you removed the nationality completely. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If a person's birthplace is already noted in a biography, the nationality parameter should be used only if it is different from the country of birth. See {{infobox person}} ("Do not link if a commonly known nationality. Do not use a flag template.").--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting. I noticed the same thing in several articles, so thought it is the standard format to represent the nationality since it is not specified anywhere. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. It's a common mistake, which is why you see it. I remove it only if I notice it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah! now understood . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible return

Thank you for the quick response on FF2 socks Bbb23. It looks like a new one has just been created here JackBRootJss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does adding a new SPI report when the most recent one has not been archived cause any problems? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I new question just popped up. Considering the snafu I created a couple weeks ago is it possible that this is Jaredgk2008 piggybacking on the latest round of FF2 socks? MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well things are moving fast as Bongwarrior already applied a block. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey, you're getting good at this. I blocked several others as well belonging to Jaredgk2008.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the added block. But I'm not sure "duchbag" is an insult. I mean, my ancestry is all Irish, nothing from the Netherlands at all. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: I think he said something about banning MarnetteD as well. I'm not sure why I don't revoke talk page access at the time of the block as I often do with Jaredgk2008's socks. There's nothing redeeming about either master.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the work you do with respect to socks. It is appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much, James.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unypoly

He has previous SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/게이큐읭.

Just FYI. — regards, Revi 12:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: I'm trying to tackle these SPIs in the standard way without taking into account the Korean wiki. I see that you are an administrator there (among other places), but I can't read Korean, so a lot of it is very hard for me to follow. The SPI you point to, for example, doesn't mention any of the three users at the Unypoly SPI, so when you say "He has previous SPI", who do you mean exactly and how can I actually see that? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I just wanted to say that his listed socks on 게이큐읭 are all identified as sock of Unypoly on Korean Wikipedia. If you need furthur assist on tracking him I think email would be better (Since he is obviously watching here) — regards, Revi 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

{{YGM}}! — regards, Revi 15:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: I didn't receive your e-mail. Usually, when users send me e-mail through Wikipedia, I receive it almost instantaneously, so I don't know what happened to yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird, I got the CC. Maybe check spambox and/or whitelist *@revi.me? I'm sending it again anyway. — regards, Revi 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe check inbox again? If you still didn't get it please email me and I'll reply with the original text. Sorry for inconvinience... — regards, Revi 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just another sock lost in the wash

92.40.102.170 [13] - I am sure Evlekis simply forgot to log-in!.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi Bbb23 - I saw you recently handled this sock investigation and had a question. The accounts in questions are actually socks of User:Jonas Poole, the original master account (as far as I'm aware) - is there a method to merge the investigation reports? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: This has been raised earlier on this page. See here. One possibility is to actually merge the newer one into the older one. The other is to cross-reference the two (each having a link pointing to the other). Someone has to make the decision that the two are behaviorally connected as CUs are of no avail because of the age of the Poole accounts. Usually, that would be an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch Hamlet

Hello! Can you please update the info on Cumberbatch's page regarding Hamlet. It's still in future tense and it should be in his lead section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamletBarbican (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You do a good job. Sometimes I'm a prick, BLP is important. Keep up the good work. Dave Dial (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AN3 / Shaun King (activist)

Facepalm — I got distracted with blocking a couple of the IPs on the page due to being webhosts, then, after investigating, I full-protected and went to close it but found you only chose to issue a warning. This was totally my bad; I double checked for an admin action on the page history itself, but didn't think to refresh AN3. :P If you think it doesn't need a full-protect, I have no problem with reverting it. I just thought it made sense as I already had to deal with a report on it a few days ago (and had only protected it 3 days). Other than that, I found the same conclusions as you, though it took a lot of time. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slakr: I can understand full protection. Would've been a lot easier than the position I took. :-) I don't think you need to revert it. If, regardless of my warning to the editor, you think it's the right thing to do, that's fine with me. Your call, and no need to apologize, btw. These things happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked account

Would you see this page please? [14] --Altostratus (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I edited pages with pure intentions. Sorry that you found them to be vandalism. FallopianDude (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Fasha

Greetings, I have evidence that this page is CURRENTLY being hacked. It has already been falsely edited causing defamation although it was immediately resolved. I have a screenshot as proof. There is a user on this page that is relentlessly attempting to delete this page along with other users that have all deleted their pages immediately after their comment. How and who can I speak to about this as there are hackers actively trying to destroy pages on Wikipedia. Please advise. saritabaldonado 03:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, there is no hacking. An IP editor edited the page twice; it was reverted. That is all. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Bbb, is this another sock of User:Ahmed Mohi El din? Drmies (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Based on a check after the post here on September 2, no. Haven't checked subsequently.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't know those individuals, I'm a fan of Sarah Fasha's and she has a YouTube channel where she made a video about how she was threatened and was told that there was going to be an attempt to delete her page. I also gathered many links to prove her notability and why she should keep her page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want changes made to the article, you should use {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article Talk page. I'd stay clear of the attacks, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I will do it there but can you please elaborate on "staying clear of attacks"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ayo Mary Laurent

Hi, can I kindly request more advice on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Laurent Can I request your admin office to consider a review and recreation of this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halle178 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've replied to this user on my talk page. If you want to check whether this is another sock of Mr.sahota then be my guest. SmartSE (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Thanks for the heads up. I checked when the user posted the message here, and, surprisingly, the accounts do not appear to be related. At the same time, I can't understand why a user's first edit would be to post this message. I intentionally didn't respond, although I think your response was great.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I add another name to a closed sockpuppet investigation?

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TeaLover1996 you blocked and tagged User:Sociable Computer as a sockpuppet of the indeffed User:TeaLover1996
Since then, User:AH999 has removed the fresh start tag from his page, in this edit
However, in this edit User:AH999 admitted he was editing as User:Zafiraman, which went through a name change to User:TeaLover1996 at 23:31, 11 February 2015 - so he is now reactivating an old account.
User:ComputerTechGuy and User:Alex hudson99 have already been shown to be socks of User:AH999
I also have suspicions about User:RedRanger1996 who is also a Middleborough supporter and has only exchanged 2 posts with User:TeaLover1996

How do I re-open a non-archived SPI, to consolidate these reports/problems? - or is this sufficient for you to add the ducks to the existing case? - Arjayay (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay: You go back to WP:SPI and you enter the name of the master. It will automatically append the new report. If you used Twinkle, I don't know the answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle does that too. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Stepping on your toes

Sorry, I started running a check here just as you marked it as in progress. I'll head for lunch and let you do all of the work ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Hehe, I already noticed you blocking while I was checking, so I stopped and said so on the SPI page. I've already had lunch. I can continue, but we need to get it straight who's doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like when you said you were leaving for lunch, you skedaddled, so I'm returning to the check.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Today is my lucky day! I'm off to buy a Lotto ticket.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I get half the winnings for my work. I commented at the SPI about an edit filter. Do you think that's a good idea?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter would help. Blacklisting the website would be even more efficient, though I'm not sure if there's support for that. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's the rub. Some users think those kinds of sources are reliable. I think there are more editors who think not, including me, but I doubt we have anything definitive to hang our hat on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I always remove them if I see them. There are plenty of discussions at WP:RSN that show there is consensus that the majority of online genealogical websites do not meet WP:RS as they call for original research and often include the date a birth is registered as opposed to the actual birth date. But that's neither here nor there, especially on a Friday afternoon leading into a long weekend.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it one step at a time. First, we need to see if I'm right and that more socks pop up. If so, then we can revisit this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am the official Queen of Procrastination and hereby take you up on your offer to revisit this another day.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Careful Ponyo, that title sounds like a Lifeline Ophelia username without the sexual innuendo. It really should be Mr Queen of Procrastination (LO likes gender confusion).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Queen of Procrasstination?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't quite have that LO ring, but it is closer. You can work on it and then request a rename.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Userboxes

Would it be okay if I used a couple of yours? Takk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmik (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The userboxes don't really belong to me, so unless you add a userbox to your userpage that misrepresents you, you can copy the ones you like. Which ones were you thinking of?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello! I filed a sockpuppet investigation yesterday and am wondering if I have to notify them on their talk pages? I didn't see anything saying I did but, it does have a "defend yourself" section and am now wondering... how would they know to do that if they haven't been notified? Thanks in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Unlike some administrator noticeboards, there is no requirement to notify the users. Sometimes, it's not even a good idea. BTW, do you remember what happened when you opened the SPI? It looks like you had problems, and even your ultimate "fix" left the SPI incorrectly structured (I corrected it). Just curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I'd never done it before and, when I clicked save, it ended up looking like this. I had forgotten to put the second ] at the end of Days of Our Lives when I tagged "...[[Days of Our Lives-related..."] Sorry about that and thanks for fixing it!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

In the future, you can click on Show preview when you think you're done so you can see if it's formatted properly. It's pretty much like any edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks for the tip (and I just tested it with this edit and now see exactly what you mean)!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hecate's Wheel

Hello Bbb23,

Someone left a message on my talk page regarding an article you deleted. Here it is:

How do I get back my deleted article? I'm really struggling with how this site works its very confusing & I don't know who deleted it in the 1st place. Any help would be appreciated. The page title was "Hecate's Wheel" & it was deleted March 2015 VickiJazPrncess (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, --ceradon 03:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Say what?

Hi Bbb, it's 99--don't even think about lumping me in among 'vandalism edits' [15]. I'll send you emails of bad paintings. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That's really funny. I hate pending changes, and it's your own fault for trying to intervene on a page that's protected that way. I saw that you (didn't know who it was) tried to undo the vandalism, but when there are several PC edits to review, it's a pain in the ass to be meticulous in an edit summary. Besides, your threat is hollow. I don't mind receiving e-mails of bad paintings. BTW, how are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine, which is far terser than saying life is becoming more interesting with each passing year. And for the most part, 'fine' is true. I hope you're well, and enjoying life even if it's free of bad artwork. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI for AndresHerutJaim

Hi, I am not sure if you saw my comments here. Since you stated that there was no non-stale puppet for Andres, I suggested that a recent sock (LoveFerguson) might have been misclassified as NoCal100. There hasn't been a formal SPI for this account: it was blocked on a WP:DUCK basis (see my discussion with the blocker here). NoCal and Andres have been confused before, see this for an example. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you ping the clerk at the SPI after you provide diffs supporting your suspicion that the two accounts you mentioned at the SPI (only one here) belong to AndresHerutJaim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't provide diffs originally since there was no SPI for the original account, and this is an SPI for a different account. I will do that now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		For tireless work as a pending changes reviewer. LavaBaron (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I do all that much but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nikki Sinn

Hello

Before I even had a chance to respond to this nomination the page was deleted by you. There are hundreds of profiles on this site for porn stars and Nikki Sinn is just as notable and important as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterfontana34 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-block 130.25.240.84

User:130.25.240.84 has resumed editing after their block expired. Since it's already been established that the account is a suspected sockpuppet, a re-block would be necessary without going to WP:SPI. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Bbb23. I'd like to thank you personally for removing Parrhesiast's e-mail access. I've just received an insulting e-mail that he sent me before you did that; it was sent with the apparent objective of harvesting information about me (my mail filter added a warning that the e-mail "contains content that's typically used to steal personal information"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I got the same thing, but I couldn't figure out what that content was. I didn't want him sending e-mail like that regardless, so I disabled e-mail acceess for him and for all of the other accounts he has (that I know about), but I'm still puzzled by it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

He's using more accounts: User:UnrelatedParrhesiast and User:TheParrhesiastRises. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With the first one, Favonian forgot to block the account, so I did so (disabling e-mail access). With the second, which Favonian did block, I changed the block to disable e-mail access.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tool?

Is there a tool to look up word usage or phrases by editors within their contributions? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. You could try the Help desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I left the question there. Hopefully, I will hear back one way or the other. In the meantime, I will start sorting through comments from that/those editor(s). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep Kumar Page4me

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep Kumar Page4me. Thanks. Gparyani (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Farell01 et al.

Thoughts? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

Did you get the chance to look over the email I sent to you a couple of days ago?--5 albert square (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I responded on September 7. Do I need to resend it?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes please as I didn't receive anything :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI of me

Please revdel your SPI of Iran nuclear weapons 2. It is an explicit invasion of privacy by an account that explicitly stated from the start that it was created for privacy. Thank you.Iran nuclear weapons 3 (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

CU results

I'm very confused by this. Not related to the master or to SBUX but using an account name that is a variation on the confirmed socks used previously? Is this a case of a copycat or a case of a master getting smarter on how to sock under the radar? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned the other account partly so you would know that it's not what you suspected. As for the overriding issue, although I respect your instincts with this master, I'm convinced that this is just a person who came here to promote Ryan Skyy, a garden variety socking situation and having nothing to do with Kbabej. Anthony Gibson is not an uncommon name.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My instincts tell me no, this is not use of a common name for a username, especially with the LGBT theme within the article created. If there is a change in the IP address and whatever else you all look at with a CU, then I'm wondering if it comes anywhere "close" to the change I mentioned to you a while back during the SBUXaddict SPI. Salvidrim, when closing that SPI, mentioned to me on his talk page that there are signs Kbabej is getting smarter about hiding. I'm not going to press this issue, but I do still think the final SPI determination is off. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything's possible, but it is not even "close."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected Evlekis sock

Hello. Would you please take a look at Chewers Meat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? My Evlekis detector started flashing when this "new" editor started reverting me on articles that I had edited a few hours earlier, as several other Evlekis socks have done lately. Their very first edit replaced the official 2011 Indian census data I had added, the most official data there is for demographics in India (as every real Indian well knows), on Uttar Pradesh with older data, with the bogus reason "unsourced, unfounded", and after doing that and some gnoming on the same article they then continued to Demographics of Uttar Pradesh to do the same thing there. Continuing to revert me with similar bogus reasons even after I told them not to replace newer data with older data. The comments on their own talk page and on my talk page are also in typical Evlekis style. As for possibly being good faith edits, or at least edits by someone other than Evlekis, the two articles I was reverted on, like all other articles about Indian states, districts and cities, often see Indian editors trying to add fake data for religions, with Muslims inflating the number of Muslims at the expense of Hindus, and Hindus inflating the number of Hindus at the expense of everyone else, but since all Indians know that the official census data trump every other source they only change the numbers, leaving the reference alone, unlike this "new editor" who has repeatedly replaced the census reference with older and/or less reliable sources. In addition to that the only ones who would object to the new census data are Hindu activists, since the new data show that the number of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh increase faster than the number of Hindus, resulting in a higher percentage of Muslims and lower prcentage of Hindus in the 2011 data compared to the 2001 data. But a devout Hindu would never choose a user name like Chewers Meat, since devout Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons, just like a devout Muslim never would choose a user name that includes the word "pork". And when you combine all of that the chance/risk of this being a new Evlekis sock is, IMHO, well over 50%... Thomas.W ^talk 06:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, nice catch. But I hate giving Evlekis this much information about how I can tell it's him, by the silly mistakes he keeps making, since it's obvious that he reads every post I make, and keeps tabs of which articles I edit. Thomas.W ^talk 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Again...

...I stepped on your toes. Sorry!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I almost always use the signal that I'm checking, but I don't think historically some of the more experienced CheckUsers, e.g., you, did so. Is that right? Don't worry about it, though, I didn't really need ten toes. Balance, schmalance.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant to mark as in progress, but took a quick peek "under the covers" to get an idea of how extensive it was going to be and the results sort of fell into my lap. As I was noting the results I edit conflicted with you. On the positive side I earned us a compliment. Even Steven?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I almost always mark in progress, but I confess to sometimes doing exactly what you did. We could never be even. In my book, you'll always be better. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) There so few active SPI-patrolling CUs and you guys are just so hard-working and dedicated. Big cheers to you both. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Salvidrim!!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TPA

Hello. Would you mind removing talk page access for the Evlekis socks you blocked today? He has started to get all worked up tonight, like every Friday... Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the two who have gone bananas have had their Talk page and e-mail access revoked by C.Fred. Let me know if there's something I'm missing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a timing thing: I found out about the situation after this message, so I've gone ahead and revoked a lot of talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Foul mouthed hopper is at it again

This guy is now here. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Further block evasions here, although there has not been any activity since yesterday. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jaredgk2008 socks

Thanks for the quick action! In the course of revdel'g all of his edits (apparently he takes pride in his "creativity", and hates revdels), I found several more:

• User:DallylittleBeears
• User:SuperHotDuduue
• User:HarleyPampeguice
• User:KbM5IoK
• User:SunshineMooasteR

Would you mind CUing those as well? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:JimmyJaSOoo is a fairly obvious sock as well – just for the record. Favonian (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's so nice of you both to stop by, and it's not even a holiday or anything. I've confirmed and tagged all the accounts except SunshineMooasteR, who presents some complexities that I have to work out (although not right now). I also found a few sleepers (a CU of Jaredgk2008 always seems to mushroom), which I've blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Ha. I just got an email from "Crystal Robson" complaining about NawlinWiki having revdeleted some of their stupid vandalism. I mean, the level of inanity is quite impressive. Bbb, Alabama is looking only halfway decent, though it's supposed to be a cupcake game. I'm sure you saw that Auburn had a hard enough time with their gimme game. Overtime--no doubte you put money on Auburn by 20. NW, what's your favorite team? Please tell me you're not an LSU fan. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, I forgot: in their email they claimed to be a Bama fan. Would you believe it? The Bear would have scoffed at the thought. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, and thanks for the welcome! And guess what, there's one more: User:Dressanny9. I moved here way too late to be an LSU fan, Drmies -- I actually follow the pros more than college, these days. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hehe, I guess I was too subtle. My "welcome" was meant to be mildly sarcastic, not that I don't of course enjoy seeing you both here (Drmies I can't [correction] live without). You both do great work. Just that I wish you stopped by for something other than Jaredgk2008. If I understand properly, Drmies likes college cupcakes, and NW likes pro cupcakes. Personally, cupcakes are too trendy for me. I like basic high-class French pastry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I corrected an obvious but unfortunate error: you're welcome, Bbb. Surely, NW, you can enjoy a good old-fashioned smashmouth SEC game; Henry just ran it in again. I'll get you ready for the rest of the season, don't worry: I propose we get together here on Fridays to discuss what's going on, run our own College wikipedia Gameday special, so to speak. Bbb will be glad to host. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• I found another sock, User:DkMakcooiio. They admitted it on their recently created RfA. Please block them. Thank you. Altamel (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, that Alabama game wasn't that exciting--maybe they got bored. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• NawlinWiki and Favonian: Serious question. How do you notice and identify Jaredgk2008 socks? Depending on your answers, it might be better to e-mail me as I have no doubt Jaredgk2008 watches this page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's not a secret, because he always does the same thing. He has a typical set of targets: ESPN sportscasters (sometimes other sportscasters), and people affiliated with The Elephant Show. The pattern edit involves changing basic facts about the person such as place and date of birth, and adding to or replacing the personal bio with a long, unlikely, and ultimately ridiculous story of the "he was raised by wolves in Kyrgyzstan" ilk. Kind of like early Woody Allen short stories, except Woody's were funny. His secondary targets include pages on cities or towns, where he will add a long and equally ridiculous biography of some supposed resident of the town. As I mentioned on the SPI page, the account's first edit will often be one of these, and if the account is not blocked immediately, he will wait four days and autoconfirm it with 10 innocuous edits so that he can go after semiprotected pages. So it's helpful to see the pattern and block on the first edit. It appears that he uses proxies and creates several accounts each time, so a CU is always helpful whenever you see one of them. Thanks for all your efforts! NawlinWiki (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was great. I pay so much attention to the technical side that I sometimes forget the origins of it all and the behavioral aspects (other than it's almost always vandalism). I wonder why The Elephant Show. I do remember now the long weird stories that he inserts that are clearly preposterous.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks NW. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Oh, also, sometimes he will just replace a sportscaster's bio with that of another sportscaster, like with the one I just found, User:LesHinklethefifth (please CU!). NawlinWiki (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Assistance would be appreciated

Hi Bbb, I've received admonitions for attempting to curb a user who appears determined to self-promote, most recently by using a sandbox page to copypaste an unrelated good quality article, inserting their own name and photo therein [16]. This strikes me as a persistent disruption. I've already emailed Drmies for his feedback; anything you can contribute would be appreciated. I hope you're enjoying a serene weekend. Aside from this, of course. Very best, JNW (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented at your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RMS52's Conduct

Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to take a bit of your time to address a recent concern I had with User:RMS52's conduct on en-wiki. Recently, I came across User_talk:RMS52#Your_conduct and decided you may be the best person to discuss the issue with, as you were one of the most recent people addressing a similar issue on his talk page. Personally, I have received two users on #wikipedia-en-help (IRC) pinging/messaging/linking me to User:RMS52's clerking. It seems to me that despite multiple warnings/mentions of concern on the user's talk page, the user has not changed their conduct to address recent concerns. For example, after you had left a message on the user's talk page, the user commented here. Although DRN is a place for volunteers to contribute their respective thoughts, as User:RMS52 may rightfully do so as well, what concerns me is that the user seems to have anxious drive to clerk on a variety of administrative pages without a detailed and meaningful insight into the issue at hand. Not to criticize, User:RMS52's grammar seems to reflect this claim. Also, after receiving certain permissions on WP:RFPERM pages, the user seems to be anxious to make comments or notes about other users consistently, which seems to be a way of condescending upon other users in the Wikipedia community. Although not all administrators may address the issue, as they may be more polite or not notice the issue, this trend has me concerned. Quite frankly, I would like some insight and a second opinion from you. I request that you either ping me or leave me a talkback on my user page when and if you reply to this message. --JustBerry (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Since you have not replied yet, you should note that I have addressed the issue to him a few times. --JustBerry (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I've noticed that this user has been heavily involved in SPI cases after you addressed your concern with the user on their talk page, although you should note that the contributions were made in the "Comments by other users" section. User:RMS52's template usage would most probably lead a passive user to think they were the main clerk/CheckUser. I just wanted to inform you; as a CheckUser, you would know what level of involvement would be appropriate, etc. better. --JustBerry (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems bothersome that the user has argued with another sysop in the past. Also, User:RMS52 seemed to be in a rush when making the revert being talked about here. Seems to be defensive and in a rush, despite the fact that the initial edit of the user was already based on an article talk page discussion. Finally, the user's tone here would lead me to think that they are the owner of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, this message is not meant to be a pile on of any sort, but rather a detailed discussion of a concern I have held for quite some time now.

•  Final Comment I understand you are busy, and I respect your time. If you wish, I would be willing to move the discussion to WP:ANI or something of the sort. Just let me know with a pinged response or a talkback on my page if you don't mind - thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• @JustBerry: I'm aware of your comments here. There's no need to go to ANI as I'm doing my own investigation, but it's taking me some time and making me a bit dizzy, honestly. Feel free to offer any new diffs, though, here. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, I just didn't want to pressure you into taking on a situation simply because of a comment you made earlier. I figured you are busy with other things, and there is no rush - no need to prolong your wait to take a break. To your preference, I will leave additional diffs if the situation changes significantly. Thanks for helping out. --JustBerry (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Leupp Schools, Inc.

You may contest the speedy deletion but not remove the template.

Please quote your sources.

Please write the article. One line doesn't make one.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: If you don't understand speedy deletion policy, then you should not be tagging articles. Hopefully, your history of tagging articles is more policy-compliant than this instance. Mistagging articles repeatedly may be considered disruptive, and reverting administrator declines of a tag is also disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at AN3?

Hi BB23, I'm asking you about this since you've very recently posted at AN3. Would you be willing to look at this open case, which is part of an ongoing previous case?[17]

Swarm responded in the first main section with no action, but the edit warring has only gotten worse in an obvious violation of 3RR in the more recent subsection. I haven't heard from Swarm yet, so if you're willing and wouldn't feel like it'd be stepping on Swarm's toes (I'm in no way intending admin shopping here since I'm just looking for a response from anyone, including Swarm), a response from someone would be nice since this overall case has been picking up stream rather than slowing down. I'm entirely understanding that action sometimes just isn't taken at AN3, but I'm concerned that we've had a multi-day edit warring problem without action yet and multiple editors speaking out against the edits at articles. Perfectly fine if you aren't up for it at this time. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I had already left a new comment at User talk:Abductive#3RR again before seeing the exchange here. Though Abductive is (for the moment) the person who is over 3RR, the other side also seems oblivious to nuance. User:Abductive made some quite-off-the-wall edits at sulfilimine where he declared that sulfilimines were a subclass of the neonicotinoids (a thing which makes little sense chemically). But he seems to have stopped reverting at sulfilimine EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting there (I wasn't aware of it until now). Just on your comment towards me, I've actually been trying to work nuance in, but it's extremely difficult to do that in this edit warring environment. We're getting broad generalizations of sources in the edit warring (often times to the point of WP:OR), so it's hard to get down to nuance on how it's like neonicotinoids. I'd like to get to that point where the nuance could be legitimately discussed though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

South Shore Curling Club

Not sure why you deleted the South Shore Curling Club page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shore_Curling_Club) — can you please explain? There are pages for other curling clubs on Wikipedia — what makes those different? Ewire4130 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject sufficient to have an article at Wikipedia. I can't speak as to other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI Work

Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. The reason why I chose to contact you is because I have been involved in a number of discussions with you recently. Before making your decision, I kindly ask that you note the following:

• I have carefully read through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Helping_at_SPI_and_requesting_to_join_the_clerks_team and understand what the job entails.
• I understand that there might already be sufficient or too many SPI clerks, in which I am more than willing to not overcrowd and cause unnecessary disruption in the already smoothly-running process if there is no need for an additional clerk. One of the reasons why I chose to reach out to you was that there appear to be a handful of inactive SPI clerks; I made an inference of some sorts in thinking that SPI may need additional clerks - once again, that would be a call you would have to make and am not making by any means.
• I have an intermediate understanding of the inner-workings of Internet routing, if you think that might be helpful to SPI in any way.

Rather than making the decision finite, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on your talk page prior to making any final commits or decisions. If you are too busy or do not feel like training a clerk, please do not feel offended to tell me so. I would be more than willing to either consider the role at another time or ask another CheckUser - whatever you suggest or works for you. Of course, if you do not think I would be a fit clerk candidate, by all means, please don't hesitate to mention that as well. Thanks --JustBerry (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally train clerks. Sometimes we accept trainees into a training class. Although our discussions have been cordial, before anyone would accept you as a trainee, either individually or collectively, you would have to explain your block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23:Before we discuss anything else, would you like me to continue discussion about my block log here or to someone else? I would be more than happy to do so for you, but I will need to pull up the ArbCom reports under which the block and respective unblock was made. Therefore, the rationale behind the situation will be made clear. I would like to note up front, however, that the block was unintentional, essentially. In order to remove any systemic bias, I would need to find those report(s) for you. At the moment, I have not been able to find the reports and will continue searching through the archives if you wish to pursue this discussion any further. I suppose my block log will continue to come up in any new position I decide to take on Wikipedia, not to make this cynical in any way. --JustBerry (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: You should note that the premise of the block is more complex than I had initially reckoned. Additionally, rather than ArbCom, the situation was handled through lengthy emails to BASC. I'm not sure to what degree or extent you would like the explanation to be or whether you would like an explanation for that matter. Due to its potential sensitivity, it might be best to have the explanation of the block off-wiki if possible. Alternatively, I can reach out to User:GorillaWarfare, who was involved with my situation at the time of the block and is also a CheckUser at the moment, particularly if you do not train users anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Please note that since I've had limited interaction with User:GorillaWarfare since then; we have mutually agreed (over IRC) that it might be best to ask someone else instead. May I choose someone on this list? [18]

There are too many unknowns for me to answer your question. If you believe that a functionary is the best person to share your history with (on or off wiki), I would pick one that is active at SPI. Frankly, I think you have a rather large and complicated hurdle to overcome, and that is only the initial hurdle. If you manage to get past it, you're still judged as to your suitability otherwise. You may find, as with me, that the person you contact is unwilling to spend the time. However, you can certainly try.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Engboy

I opened up another suspected sock-puppet, this time with the same level of image uploading as previous socks. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

mis-labeled ANI report

I appear to have spelled "Pritikin" as "Scarsdale" on an ANI report... ...how do I best fix this? Anmccaff (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it for you and left a note at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I suspect "fixing" it myself mighta led to a new set of problems. Anmccaff (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Andy Whitfield, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mckeezy k strikes again

I saw your name in conjunction with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianalaflair. I wanted to let you know that a new user, Mckeezykmusic (talk · contribs) has re-created the article Mc keezy k(Musician). What is the right action to take? Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ubiquity: All taken care of, thanks. Reporting it here is fine. However, if I'm not around, you should reopen the SPI. In this particular case, because the filer, Tokyogirl79, is an administrator, you could also try going directly to her.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help with the SPIs I've raised recently! 5 albert square (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 5 albert square.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the SPI. Apologies if I complicated or over-dramatized anything by submitting to ANI, if I come across similar issues I'll be sure to keep it to SPI. Thanks again! RA0808 talkcontribs 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm sock puppetry

Another new one [19]. WCM_email 18:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-creation of SPI Case

I realized you recently declined this SPI case. However, I have additional accounts that may be linked to this account this time. I just wanted to inform you that I have opened another SPI case on the same page to avoid any confusion, as I realize the case may be ready for archiving already. --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. It's Friday evening on this side of the pond and Evlekis is drunk and bored as usual, pasting my talk page full of abuse to liven himself up. So would you mind doing a CU-check on Bucksham Superior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It might lead us to a few more socks... Thomas.W ^talk 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W: Looks like User:Mike V already took care of those. And hi Bbb! NawlinWiki (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:@Mike V: Stretters way (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another Evlekis sock. Check the last sentence under "Biography" in Hermas Maloj, an article I just nominated for speedy deletion as G5. So we need a CU on that one too. Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and zapped. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Despite our recent discussions, it would be beyond thinking to understand what SPI would be without you. Thank you for your tireless efforts to maintain a low SPI back log and proactively answer to user concerns. Your hard work is thoroughly appreciated by myself and plenty others on the wiki, and I want you to know that. Not to mention, thanks for being honest and guiding me accordingly. --JustBerry (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I second this barnstar. Seriously, the encyclopedia is allowed to move forward without disruption exactly as a result of tireless contributors like you. Out of curiosity, how much time and effort does it take to connect 29 accounts to each other? Above all else, thank you for your dedication, and keep doing what you do. —Mz7 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Mz7: It's fairly time consuming, particularly to be thorough in following up on all the strands. The hardest part, though, is when you hit upon something that is very unexpected, e.g, not your typical sleeper, at which point you have to decide how to handle it. I usually step away from it then to let it percolate before making a final decision. An absolute answer to your question isn't really possible as I don't use a timer..--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I can only imagine. Hopefully, no one here takes CheckUsers for granted. Indeed, I think taking a step back when you hit the unexpected is wise and very much applicable to editing beyond SPI. Thanks for the quick response, and all the more thank you for your contributions! Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad Block

Shouldnt the block duration just be extended? Why the immediate indefinite block? [20] Misdemenor (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The blocking policy allows administrators to use their discretion when extending blocks. An indefinite block is an extension of a block's duration. In this case, the user was found to be evading an ongoing block and edit war while doing so. This is a serious breach of policy, and I would much rather prefer that the user explain they understand what they did wrong in an unblock request, rather than have the block simply expire, giving them the opportunity to continue the same disruptive behavior. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and I agree with Bbb23 that this is the best way to do that. Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 - Doc.G.Sound Entertainment Article Speedy Deletion

Hello Bbb23,

I appreciate your review of the recent creation of the Doc.G.Sound Entertainment article here on wikipedia. I understand why you would consider deletion for the article, although it is nowhere near finished and contains very minimal information. Our team thought it best to create the page to reserve its name, and return at a later date to complete the article. We are confident that once completed, the article will meet all of wikipedias criteria. I kindly ask you to reverse your submission for a speedy deletion of the article, and allow us the time to complete it. Your time and consideration is much appreciated.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armando Guarnera (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is "our team"?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing User:Docgsound is involved. clpo13_(talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: Thanks for connecting the dots. Both accounts have been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I followed your helpful advice, thank you

Bbb23,

I went ahead and followed your helpful advice, thank you.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Riathamus000#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments.

I identified the oldest account.

I added evidence in the form of individual DIFF LINKs for each of the named accounts.

Please see DIFF.

Hopefully this is now satisfactory.

And, truly, thanks for asking me to be more specific, I think thanks to you now this is a much stronger case -- so thank you for that !!!

— Cirt (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt. I commented at the SPI and will now bow out and let a clerk deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI Investigation on Dude on riding dudes

To clarify, the user appears to be either switching IPs and making new accounts or simply making new accounts from their current IP. Can an IP block or minor regional block of some sort be given? Especially from this discussion, it seems like the problem is on-going. --JustBerry (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thus far, there's nothing special about this SPI to justify additional measures. Sockmasters create socks. Nothing new.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Blessing Academy, Darjeeling, India

Yes, sorry about that, I'd forgotten A7 wasn't for schools - or perhaps it just didn't feel like a school as it's a nursery school. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessing Academy, Darjeeling, India. PamD 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. At least you understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hannah Wheeler

This comes as a surprise to me because it has been used before and visibly applies to that article. In that case, what should happen? The article simply appears to have no improvement and she has no listed work. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing happens. Unless there's a criterion that applies in non-article space, it remains.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, are you saying that even G11 never applies to drafts? Because G11 is used countless times including at userpages (which are not technically "articles") if you've never noticed. BTW, I'd prefer if you'd ping me when you respond that way I see it as soon as possible. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: No, I said exactly the opposite in my reply above (non-article space criterion). At the same time, G11 would have a higher bar for a draft than for an article. I would less frequently delete a draft per G11, whereas, for example, I would apply G3 (vandalism or hoax) the same as I would to an article. Just like with all administrative decisions, some of it is black and white, and some of it is a judgment call.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Nyanchoka

• Nyanchoka (talk · contribs) was blocked for 2 weeks for socking/block evasion. He's acknowledged his other account and stated the means in which they will avoid socking and copyright violations in the future. This might be a case of WP:ROPE and I'd be willing to unblock pending your feedback. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: I have no objection to your unblocking him. The two weeks was discretionary, and some might have blocked him for less time. Before you unblock him, though, I would steer him away from creating alternative accounts, even legitimate ones. I don't think it's a good idea for a former sock master to create other accounts. They will usually be looked on with suspicion. Thanks for talking to the user as it sounds like he's actually learned something out of all this. Let's hope he can turn into a constructive user. BTW, you've now adopted him. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh no... okay well I'll certainly keep an eye on him for awhile. I too got the impression they learned something so hopefully they will contribute positively going forward. Mkdw^talk 20:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:FarnhamParkFC

Hey Bbb, what's wrong with a soft block? Did you want no block, or did you want a harder block? Either way, it's typically what I do if I don't look at the actual edits (to see if they're promotional, if it's more than just one thing, etc.) but I know the name is wrong. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard block. A long time ago we had a discussion about this (with other administrators), and as I recall, you and someone were either always or almost always in favor of soft blocks, whereas I and and Writ Keeper (?) were in favor of hard blocks. If a user creates a page about an organization, regardless of whether the language in the article is promotional, I hard-block as they are promoting the entity. Without going back and looking at this one, my memory is that in this instance the language itself was also promotional. Soft blocks, as you know, allow the user to simply create a new account, whereas a hard block forces them to answer questions about their contribution plans. Generally, most of these accounts have no plans to do anything except to create an article about the organization and perhaps create or edit related articles. I'm pretty hard-nosed about this stuff (pun intended), so I'm reasonably confident there are other administrators who soft-block when I would hard-block.

We were watching a Jeopardy! show that we recorded (don't know when) about an English professor from AUM, Darren Harris-Fain. Isn't he your boss?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes he is; you should write him up. Still can't believe he didn't know his asparagus. As for the blocks--we used to have something called "non-profit promotional username" or something like that, and essentially that was a soft block. I usually choose Template:Uw-softerblock for the nicer ones or if I'm unsure (for whatever reason) whether they've been purposely spamming. Note that the softerblock does say, in bold print, that "promotional editing is not acceptable". Now, if you throw in an extra $5 per hard block I make, I'll be glad to forget all about the soft version. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Paid adminning. I'll give you $10 wikimoney for each hard block. Isn't there a category for administrators who are willing to make hard blocks? :-) (I don't think I've gotten to the asparagus yet - he still hasn't lost. I had some asparagus for lunch.)--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we're waiting to find out if he goes to the Champion of Jeopardy Tournament or something like that. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Haven't seen the episode in which he loses yet, but I just saw the one with the white asparagus (is that the one you referred to?). Hey, even I knew that was white asparagus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Amazing, no? And there were a few others in that episode that seemed so easy to me. But part of winning Jeopardy is getting on Jeopardy, and apparently it took him years to do that. Plus, one or two of the final Jeopardies (?) he got, I had no clue. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska

Hello sir,

I wanted to talk to you as to why you undid my changes to the Galerie Gmurzynska page? I believe it is essential to have a list of artists that the gallery has exhibited. In fact, most galleries have such a list as it informs the reader on the represented artists and history of said gallery. If the issue are sources, I deem it fair to add a disclaimer stating that citations are needed on top.

I hope you will understand my point of view, I'm looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RioHazgul (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't add information with a "disclaimer". If we don't have sources, we don't add the material. However, even if you had sources, the list provides little value to the article. If, on the other hand, you wanted to add material about specific artists, what they exhibited, when they exhibited it, and how the exhibit was received, citing secondary sources (not the gallery itself), depending on the material, that might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand. I've seen gallery pages with the following disclaimer, accompanied by the icon of a book, saying: "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. ".

Could we agree on keeping the section up until I can find the time to add some additional sources/materials and strengthen the category? I believe it's a pity to remove general information about the program of a gallery. It's the strongest representation of a gallery and needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RioHazgul (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIGN about signing your posts. Please also read WP:INDENT about formatting threads on Talk pages. I can't speak for other articles, but editors have two choices when confronted with material in an article that is unsourced. One is to tag it, and the other is to remove it. It depends on the circumstances, and it depends on the editor. However, to add new material that is from the get-go unsourced and put in a tag will not wash. And to restate what I said earlier, even if the list were sourced, it would be of little encyclopedic value without greater context.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read the guidelines on the signature and indentation, I hope the formatting is correct now. In that case, when I find the time I'll see if I can find a better encyclopedic format to list certain artists and exhibitions of the gallery with secondary sources, impact and reception. RioHazgul (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your editing on this page which I think is well-judged. If you look over this article's history, you will see that it has been littered with attempts by employees to fill it with commercial and promotional material, even secreting this as "references" sometimes. In addition, it has continually attempted to suppress aspects of its history which it would like to keep hidden (see "controversies"). As I think you have already noticed, RioHazgul and Lord lynley are obvious instances of WP:SOCK (again, not the first time) and they ought to be banned, if they have not already removed themselves. (I suspect it may well be one and the same person). I appreciated your vigilance on this page. Grammophone (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the article's history, and although I know it has been subject to whitewashing, at the same time, even now there is material that is not neutral in the other direction, including slanted wording and poor sourcing. The article needs to strike a balance between its legitimate function as a gallery and the difficulties it has gotten into. That requires moderation by disinterested editors. I'm reluctant to take an active role in attempting to balance it appropriately, partly because I'd prefer to reserve my actions to administrative ones and partly because of my lack of German skills and limited understanding of what are reliable sources in Switzerland and other countries that are cited to in the article. Given that lately you seem to be the sole champion in favor of keeping out self-serving statements by users with obvious conflicts, I'd urge you to do what you can to balance the article in the Controversies section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. All wording under "controversies" is based on the sources cited and is already radically edited in the interests of "neutrality". Regarding the German sources, again, the well-documented VAT scandal has been reduced to just a couple of lines; however, those facts can be easily checked. If you copy and paste the German texts into Google translate it will give you a clear enough text, and all the sources agree on the facts cited. I am happy to monitor the whitewashing, abuse of references etc. From your side, I am sure you can see the importance of monitoring for WP:SOCK. This page was begun by employees of the gallery who thought it would make a good free advert, and almost everyone who has edited since has fallen more or less into this category as far as I can see. Grammophone (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to autorevert recent edits of new-blocked socks?

(Whole question's in the title)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

(talk page watcher) WP:ROLLBACK? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that'd be another click. Anmccaff (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what autorevert means.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To put it another way, to automatically roll back or delete vandal's work as an integrated part of blocking them. Anmccaff (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's an odd question for a non-administrator to ask. To the extent it were possible, e.g., a bot, I believe it would be a bad idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno; us non-admins have to put up with the consequences, no? Obviously, a system that was too mindlessly automated might cause far more problems than it solves, that said, it' d be better if, say, some obvious vandalism wasn't left hanging well after the vandal was squamped. Anmccaff (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

where? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've taken care of it already, and a couple of admins appear to be keeping an eye on it. More a general question of whether it'd be better to revert immediately after obvious socking. Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

Unblock request at User talk:Hanchos, where the editor admits wrongdoing, and expresses the intention to do better. Unblock to give a second chance? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He had a relatively short record of vandalism. If you think it's worth trying, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in giving second chances in this sort of situation. Sometimes it works, and we get a good editor, sometimes it doesn't work, and we just block again. The commonest outcome, I find, is that the editor either never edits again, or makes a small number of trivial but harmless edits, and then never edits again. In none of those three cases do we lose much, and in one of them we gain a lot. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(smiling) statistical percentages?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

User:GorillaWarfare said I could: [21]. Ping me upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I'm not sure what GorillaWarfare's thinking is, but I think it's inappropriate for you to remove that conversation. If you had initiated a thread and no one responded, I could see your simply withdrawing it, but it was an extended conversation with many users commenting, including me, and it no longer "belongs" to you. Nor is it your Talk page, which of course provides you with much greater latitude in the removal of others' comments. Although I intentionally pinged GW so she could comment here if she wishes, I'm not real keen on having another extended conversation about the removal of an earlier extended conversation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To be more specific, GW had mentioned that she wouldn't think anyone would mind me making the removal of my own listing on IRC. --JustBerry (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: It should be noted that the archiving is complete. Feel free to prepare the conversation for archiving if and as you normally would. --JustBerry (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the ever-practical Vanjagenije. I don't understand your second sentence. There's nothing to prepare; it's been archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this section on your talk page regarding the archiving mentioned in "Feel free to prepare the conversation..." --JustBerry (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. My Talk page is automatically archived by a bot.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for causing confusion. JustBerry: To be fair, I said "Looks like they're usually archived to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks/Archive 2, not removed, but I doubt anyone will fuss about it either way." Definitely defer to those who are actually active on that page over my opinion; it wasn't supposed to be some sort of permission to go against common practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: To clarify, the intention here was not to go against common practices. The listing has already been archived, so there is no need for any further concern. --JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Finnish/Kven POV-pusher

How far back in time do you want the SPI? I can present a good case leading all the way back to a sock master that was indeffed in 2006, and then used multiple CU-confirmed throw-away accounts to push the same Finnish/Kven POV as the throw-away accounts that were CU-blocked yesterday, based on the same and similar sources as they used, on the same articles that they edited. If you want me to I can email you the details before filing an SPI-report. Thomas.W ^talk 19:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go as far back as you have good evidence for. Obviously, old accounts can't be checked, but it can nonetheless be useful for documentation purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say I have good evidence all the way back to 2006. Writing the report will take a day or two, though, considering the number of accounts involved and the number of diffs to create. Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Take your time. I have confidence in your ability to create a good report. You're very meticulous.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just an appetiser. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi/Archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• The SPI-report is online now: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've added more info to the report, and some clarifying comments, but feel I've had enough of it for a while. The report shows, IMHO, a clear connection between the latest socks and Art Dominique, even though it's been nine years since they were indeffed, but if you, after having had time to look at it, have any questions or want more diffs, more socks and/or more information I'll start digging again. Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at it when you first created it. Haven't looked at your updates. My cursory look was just to confirm that my expectations of you were met, and of course they were. I want to focus on two things. First, I don't want the SPI dismissed because the majority of the accounts haven't edited in so long. If it hadn't been for the recent socking, that wouldn't bother me, but I think it's important to establish a baseline here, derived from the past but helpful if there is future disruption. Therefore, I'd like to see a clerk do an actual behavioral analysis of the accounts and your evidence and make explicit findings. I have it on my watchlist, but if what I prefer isn't done, please let me know, and you can also point to this conversation depending on my availability. Also, if you believe a new sock is created, please let me know so I can take appropriate action. Thanks for all your work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

New Evlekis sock User:Tämä on Spaß

... so could someone please block and do a CU-check? Thomas.W ^talk 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Favonian is faster than I. Nonetheless, I confirmed it and found no visible sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, Bbb23,
Regarding this edit, I've noticed that on a number of SPI pages, what appears is the username and related links but For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Palvoncha abbai/Archive link, for example, did not appear. I purged the page but that didn't help.
I'm not sure why adding a break or extra space causes a link to the archive to appear but this has happened to me on about a half dozen SPI case pages where the link archive doesn't appear. I make the small edit and the link to the archive appears when the page reloads. But I acknowledge that this isn't my area to work in and I'll leave well enough alone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, all such cases were fixed by a manual purge (available in a few toolsets like Twinkle, or by adding ?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=true after the URL). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Liz: I've seen this phenomenon before too. However, I've never had purge not work. Perhaps you're not purging correctly? In any event, if you look at the templates and they all look normal (assuming you know what normal looks like at SPI :-) ), it should be fine. I'm still curious: what does "ME" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor Edit? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Can't be. I'm fairly sure that Liz is an adult. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

G5

Unless I am misinterpreting, I believe from the wording it is only applicable for articles made after the master was banned, i.e., for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary, July 9, 2015. (2015-07-9) (unless anyone in the group was banned before that) In this case, that includes everyone from the group, so it makes no practical difference, but perhaps it should be stated more exactly DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: You are correct on all points. I'll see if I can clarify my statement without getting too wordy. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I should mention that for cases like this I would certainly support a change in policy to enable us to delete retroactively, but it unfortunately isn't present policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Any additional thoughts on...

this? You probably already know the length of time that I would implement. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you would implement what you did implement. I would go with the standard six-month offer. For someone like him, who only edits a bit every few years, it shouldn't even be a big deal. I don't think he made an independent judgment. He just voted the way his friend or friends voted. He came out of one of his long dormancy periods just to do so. Nor do I think his slim contribution record is all that hot, including his "contributions" to deleted articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh that is different than what I had been thinking. Because they had a clean block log before, I would have converted this to 72 hours and treat like a first-time SPI offender as well as issue a warning that any socking or meat in the future would be far less lenient. We could also punt and let Chillum decide after seeing our responses...I'm easygoing with whatever decision is reached and not set on anything in particular. What do you think?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to whatever you folk decide. I tend to be more jaded and harsher than some, even on a first-time offense. It would bother me less if the user hadn't rejected the meat puppetry label with the independent judgment nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point and they may confess if they want to appeal a reduced block. @HighInBC: This looks like it is left to your discretion to decide what you think is best. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to think about it first. Bbb23 has given me food for thought. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerning "User:Grammophone reported by User:Xandyxyz (Result: No violation)"

Hello Bbb23

Thanks for your response concerning this issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Grammophone_reported_by_User:Xandyxyz_.28Result:_No_violation.29

I understand your statement about "No Violation".

But truly User:Grammophone has been making lots of disruptive edits and reverts on Galerie Gmurzynska. He has been warned and blocked twice. Yet, he keeps coming back to make all sorts of disruptive edits. He keeps sabotaging the page and focusing on negative content. His account is solely focused on editing the said page.

Please, how do we stop him from causing more harm. Where else can he be reported? How can he be blocked or banned indefinitely having been warned/blocked twice in the past.Xandyxyz (talk)

Why are you interested in this page at all? You're a new user with very few edits. It seems odd for you to be interested in a relatively obscure article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Making sure the customers are happy? I took a quick look at their contributions and followed a couple of leads there, and what I saw was a long string of throw-away accounts creating and maintaning/protecting articles about barely notable subjects, and another string of throwaway accounts removing content from the articles, so maybe we're seeing people fighting over territory? Thomas.W ^talk 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the gallery article?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the articles, but I also took a very quick look at a number of other articles, about companies and people, such as this, this, this, this, this, which is related to the gallery article, and several others. On one of the articles I also noticed this blocked account, with a name of a master that is unknown to me but that you might know, and that seems interesting considering that many articles edited by such throw-away accounts are about artists. These (#1, #2, #3) recently active accounts might also be interesting to compare to Xandyxyz. Thomas.W ^talk 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The accounts #2 and #3 are the ones I was talking about in my comments below. Much of what you say is already known to me, and I have done some probing, but with mixed results. As for the 2012 account, never heard of them, and unless there are confirmed non-stale accounts, it wouldn't do me much good. Besides, I don't think it is related anyway. Looks like that user was trying to advertise a specific gallery, and not this one. The whole thing gives me a headache. I don't suppose you think the article fails WP:GNG? One can always hope it'll be deleted, but somehow I doubt it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks "Bbb23" for quick response. I am an insider in the company. I'm well aware about COI issue in wikipedia and hence, I don't have to edit the article by myself. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit articles. User:Grammophone and many others have been editing Galerie Gmurzynska. This is a multi-billion dollar firm. We monitor the wiki page from time to time. We take a look at the edits. We only want the page to be neutral and properly sourced as it used to be. The problem we have is "User:Grammophone". All his edits and reverts focus only on sabotaging our company. I don't actually know why. Perhaps he's an ex-employee who's aggrieved or a competitor. I don't just know. Right now, another user "Ditto51" has reverted the recent edits made by "User:Grammophone". But before you know it, he comes back to undo the reverts. He has been warned and blocked last year October 2014. But he keeps coming back to sabotage the page. Every other editor that has edited the page have always done so in good faith. Check the User contributions of "User:Grammophone", you'll see that 95% of his edits are focused on the Galerie Gmurzynska. Let me know if you need any other info.Xandyxyz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You're another one. I just had to deal with two others of you. Frankly, I wish you'd all go away. Not only shouldn't you be editing the article; you shouldn't be filing edit-warring reports about other editors' conduct on the article. I don't know whether Grammophone is as bad as you say they are. I know the article has a long checkered history of factions, some claiming they are telling the "truth" about some of the legal problems the gallery has apparently had, and others whitewashing it. You want to take it somewhere to talk about it? Go to WP:ANI and start a community discussion about the article. God knows if there's enough interest as editors' first reactions will be it's a content dispute. No matter what you do, at a minimum you need to disclose your position whenever you discuss the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this page is proving frustrating User:Bbb23. I would like to clarify the editing history so that you can act accordingly. "Making sure the customers are happy" about sums it up. The multiple accounts editing Galerie Gmurzynska past and present can be explained by the fact that they have been/are being set up by gallery employees in order to whitewash uncomfortable stories in its history, including recent; that is, the only times when Gmurzynska has drawn press attention beyond the commercial art world seems to be when it has been involved in scandals such as the recent VAT evasion case and the huge smuggling operation of Russian treasures from the Khardzhiev archive, about which much more could be said. To my mind, the widespread international mainstream press attention these incidents have attracted are precisely the reason why this article passes WP:GNG. That may be unfortunate for the gallery itself, but without them this article is always liable to read like an advertisement, which is what the page was set up to be. The account above misrepresents the 2014 edit warring episode. It is true that there were multiple edits and undo edits back and forth and some bans as a result. Where I was transparent about this, gallery employees used multiple accounts including WP:SOCK where User:Andemw3 was a sock puppet for User:Art&Design3000. (I have strong suspicions that WP:SOCK has occurred again recently with User:RioHazgul and User:Lord lynley.) In the end, the article achieved a settled form, with a limited and diluted summary of the gallery's various scandals offered under "controversies". It was left alone for several months before the recent attempt to give it an entirely commercial and flattering look again. My version of the article offers nothing more than short summaries and quotations of the sources given. If the gallery thinks that those sources have made unfounded allegations then it should address the relevant publications and seek a retraction. (I presume it would have done so at the time of publication if it felt justified in so doing.) Until then, they remain the only aspects of Gmurszynska's history likely to interest general readers and as such they should stay. As for the deletions I have made, the gallery makes various claims about its commercial exhibitions and sales catalogues which are simply not true or grossly exaggerated and require proper citations if they are to be included. I would like to see some action taken against the continual insertion of improperly referenced material and references that link to what are basically advertisements. Grammophone (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the merits of what you're saying, why is this article pretty much your only interest at Wikipedia? The agenda of the gallery employees is simple to figure out, but yours isn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I am an art historian and art lover with a particular interest in Russian art of the early- twentieth century. This gallery smuggled and dispersed an archive of major historical importance which can never be replaced and is now permanently lost to researchers. I think that anyone who deals with Gmurzynska has a right to know about this and other highly dubious activities in which it has been involved. If you read this article, which only scratches the surface, or the piece in New Left Review, you may understand why I feel this way: cite Grammophone (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but that too is an agenda. Wikipedia does not exist to right wrongs and is rarely improved by crusaders and/or experts.

I see you've again reverted removing what you call unsubstantiated claims. It's easier for me to take things piece by piece. You removed this paragraph:

The gallery was the first to exhibit collages created by American architect Richard Meier in Europe. Meier had mentioned in conversation to Isabelle Bscher, daughter to gallery owner Krystyna Gmurzynska, that he made collages, and Isabelle, Krystyna and Mathias Rastorfer visited Meier in his New York City apartment where the art was stored. In 2013, the trio hosted shows of Meier's work in Zurich and Zug. In October 2014, a show entitled "Richard Meier: Collages" opened at the State Russian Museum. citation.

You're correct that the material is not fully supported by the source, but instead of removal, it could have been salvaged and read something like this:

The gallery facilitated an exhibition a show of collages by American architect Richard Meier at the State Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg in October 2014. Meier had told Isabelle Bscher, daughter of gallery owner Krystyna Gmurzynska, that he made collages, and Gmurzynska and Bscher visited Meier in his New York City apartment to look at them.

Wouldn't that have been a better solution? Meier is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article, and I'm assuming that the source is reasonably reliable. Just so you know, removing unsourced material is not an exemption from edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are lots of problems with this article, and the behavior of Grammophone is not the only one--but that won't be a problem for the next two weeks. They may have a valid point or two to make, but their editing behavior is unacceptable. Bbb, the NZZ did in fact verify the information Grammophone removed/tweaked in their last edit before the block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the block, Drmies. I was taken aback that Grammophone went back to the article and reverted again, after the report at AN3 and the other discussions of his (and others') behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violation by User:Swamiblue despite earlier block - Continued disruption. Seeking Topic Ban

The article notes that, “In his final book, APJ Abul Kalam, explains that he considers Pramukh Swami as his guru”. User Swamiblue wrote on the talk page: “do not believe it is appropriate as pramukh swami was accused of rape and sexual assualt last year and it might bring negative attention to Dr. Kalam.” (diff here) The user had been warned earlier that such insertions on a talk page constitute BLP Violations and user had even been blocked for a similar issue in another article: (diff here) and here is the block log for the violation link here. When I or another editor had removed the offending material on Dr. Kalam’s page with an explanation that this is a BLP violation, Swamiblue is persistent to add it back stating “Not BLP violation. Discussing valid point”, despite having been blocked for a BLP violation previously: diff here

And more recently User, seemingly emboldened by any lack of consequence for his persistent violation, added the following edit on Pramukh Swami’s talk page: “Has anyone gotten news regarding this mans passing? I know any day now but some people have been posting on messenger services that this guy has croaked this weekend and someone else has taken over but so far that is not true unfortunately.” (diff here) Wishing for the death of one of the leaders of the Swaminarayan group shows not just a simple bias but a form of hatred. Not only is this a BLP violation, but the comment that “he is unfortunately not dead” should get user banned from editing any Swaminarayan related articles because of a conflict of interest that emerges even more clearly when we see that user appears to have a single purpose account (WP:SPA) with more than 95% of his 600+ edits related to the promotion of a particular point of view on articles related to Swaminarayan. That is, all of user’s disruptive edits are targeted towards Swaminarayan Hinduism, suggesting a conflict of interest. Based on his previous disruptive activity on Swaminarayan-related pages, such uncivil comments as wishing for someone’s death, the fact that user’s edits betray a single purpose account, user cannot be trusted to be neutral on topics related to Swaminarayan. Thus, I feel there is grounds that User:Swamiblue be banned from editing such topics due to their long-term abuse on such topics.

A more comprehensive report was posted here: see this link.

Kapil.xerox (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I will remove those things but it has becoming so frustrating to do work and get it my work reverted by the same group of users who work together in some way. I am going to take a break from Wikipedia and work on other topics after resolving the akshardham discussions but I need to request that another administrator moderate this dispute because I have asked this moderator for help so many times and they have said no. Also I have noticed a pattern that every time kapil.xerox notifies bbb23 to block me over and over again and that is weird. Another administrator said to take a break and just wait for more consensus so I will. Swamiblue (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Probable Evlekis sock

Hello. My guts tell me that Special:Contributions/Suomisvenks is Evlekis. The style and behaviour doesn't match anyone who has been active on the article I was reverted on, but it does match Evlekis. The username is also misspelt... Thomas.W ^talk 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And the same goes for Special:Contributions/Tormegz, who is an even closer match to Evlekis. So the "Saturday Night Show" seems to have started. Thomas.W ^talk 17:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Tormegz edits with the fishes (check his deleted "contributions"). Suomisvenks looks likely, but I'll await Bbb23's findings. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You blocked him seconds before I was about to. Both accounts are  Confirmed. Plus one more: Jag är astinomia (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Evlekis has changed his style and behaviour a bit, compared to a month or two ago, but he's still very easy to spot... Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI Closing

Thanks for your ANI close. However, there appears to be a lack of clarity with their application of the alternate account policy here. Per your CU experience and your recent involvement in the user's ANI, I thought I would have you take a look. You may also want to dig into their contributions while noting that they have been blocked for edit warring in the past. To be honest, although my digging suggests against this (block creation log prior to creation of RMS52 and SPI investigation on RMS52 did not reveal this account as a master/sock), it seems a lot like RMS52's case earlier this month. --JustBerry (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that way to me.  CheckUser is not for fishing. BTW, I think it would have been better for you not to comment in the thread at all, not because your comments were necessarily objectionable, but because it would have probably died on its own if you had left it alone. Sometimes the best course of action is no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I was referring to your familiarity with the alternate account policy, not necessarily asking for a check to be performed. In any event, the concern seemed to be the 'doggy' tags from earlier; the user seems to be a tad disruptive/brash in their comments - seems like an indirect edit war to me. That's just my take on the situation. If you say so, however, the issue will remain at rest for now. Thanks for your input. --JustBerry (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Additions/detailing on recent editing regarding History of U.S.Congress

IF WHAT I DID IN ADDING TO THE ACCURACY AND DETAIL OF SAID ARTICLE ON US CONGRESS HISTORY which according to my little notation here says you reverted as to being "wordy" - is pretty stupid and arrogant and I wonder what sort of academic training you have had in history and political science plus half-century in absorbing such material as I??!! Seems pretty short-siighted,ignorant and blind especially rather ARROGANT to cut down someone else's work especially by your very crass comment shows how inadequate a self-appointed "administrator"-YOU ARE!! One of major criticisms of Wiki is after over coming its initial untrustworthiness and inaccuracy with wild crazy article submittals & edits/revisions -now we have bland mundane often inaccurate information because of jerks like you who are mentally challenged by any long detailed sentences/paragraphs!! Are you a junior high school student so you like simple dumbed down information!! Plan to do something as others have mentioned about small cadre of self-appointed judges dictators and word messiahs! Did you even HAVE THE CAPACITY to see the accuracy or truth of what I expounded on in early Congressional history in the late 18th or early 19th centuries??! - BAH, hah - probably NO!! = D.E.T (Baltimore, Maryland - Saturday evening, 9/26/15 -- 12 midnight. == personal e-mail address box at: [email protected]) Duane E. Tressler (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in an Arbcom case

Hello User:Bbb23, you have been mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complaint_against_administrator_conduct and if you desire, enter a statement, and any other material you choose to submit to the Arbitration Committee's attention. You may find useful information by reviewing the following links as well:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

Thank you for the attention you have given this matter. Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible helper account

Hello Bbb23, I could use the help from someone experienced with more complex socking situations please. See this page curation log. Especially recent entries like United Consulting Group, created 7:09 with (with several possibly fake offline sources), "reviewed" at 7:11, 2 minutes later. RoofingHub (with several possibly fake offline sources) finished at 7:13, "reviewed" immediately at 7:13 (RoofingHub edits were reviewed 3 times from the same account in the past, hardly a coincidence). The Man Van (with several possibly fake offline sources) created 8:06, "reviewed" immediately at 8:06. The reviewing account has started in April 2015 with the typical pseudo edits, since then contributions show a strange obsession with trivial CSDs and 1 borderline-notable article James Allen (company). The article page was created as redirect, and later filled up with content (another typical sock tactic of course). In short: There is a 10 percent chance for a good faith editor, but this stinks like a helper account. I have already added 2 related Orangemoody socks to Orangemoody SPI, but wanted to get another more experienced opinion before adding the "reviewer" account to the case page. It would be great, if you could look into this weird pattern more closely. Thanks for any advice. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: The editing pattern by Kiranjitdas looks like a typical Orangemoody pattern. I haven't run a CU, but I would add the user to your list at the SPI with some evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for double-checking. I wasn't entirely sure, and would like to avoid accusing possibly innocent newcomers of course. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard

I am the editor who created Sheila Cameron (artist), which was nominated for deletion and then for speedy deletion by Olowe2011, who then also brought the issue to the administrators' noticeboard after reverting another user's closing of the speedy nomination. Thank you for closing the discussion there (though I was in the process of drafting a comment when you did, now lost). I had initially conflated closing the discussion with closing the speedy nomination, and misidentified the user who had done both, so I wanted to thank the correct person. This was my first time interacting with the administrators' noticeboard, and I didn't see the box in which your closing comments were located at first.

The change to speedy deletion nomination was noted as being solely because "the subject of the article in fact requested for the article to be made." I have explained to Olowe2011 at the AfD discussion page that there is no inherent problem with a user requesting that an article about themselves (or their company or organization) be created, it being preferred to the creation of articles by users with a COI, and that Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part to accommodate such requests. I have doubts as to whether Olowe2011 will accept this coming from me, however — and it's possible I'm the one who has misunderstood Wikipedia policy regarding such situations — so I would appreciate it if you would comment regarding the issue of requested article creation at the AfD page, being more likely to be regarded as an authority on the matter than I am. Thank you in advance, whether your comment favors my position or not. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You're fine. Unfortunately, most AfDs are not friendly places and sniping is common. Nonetheless, I've commented at the AfD. Hopefully, editors will take my comments to heart, but short of major disruption there's not much more I can do. Regardless, don't let it get to you - not worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) I'm sorry to keep bothering you — though I'll take the opportunity to thank you for your comment on the AfD discussion page as well as for your reassurance here — but Olowe2011 has responded to your comment by accusing me now of "bias". I have refrained from defending myself on the AfD discussion page, respecting your admonition to avoid "distraction to the appropriate discussion of the subject's notability" there. While I have been trying to not "let it get to [me]", I'm beginning to feel legitimately under attack from these accusations now. I've never dealt with interactions like these with another editor before; what are the correct steps for me to take? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Philathropist

Hey there User:Bbb23

On the Connor Franta page, you removed "Philathropist" from his lead section. By definition, a philanthropist actively donates or contributes in some way to a cause(s), which he does. He has started, for the second year, a campaign towards raising awareness and money towards a respected charity, the Thirst Project. Therefore I believe that he should receive recognition in some way towards this. I respect that it is not a well defined term and that Philanthropy can apply to varying degrees, but I just thought I'd mention it.

I have left the page the way it is pending your answer.

Many thanks

JC (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of celebrities that give money to causes. I'm fine with calling those contributions philanthropy. However, that doesn't make them philanthropists by occupation. So, to the extent Franta deserves "recognition" for his efforts, which, as an aside, is not what Wikipedia articles are for, we can note them in the body of the article (assuming they are supported by secondary sources, not just the organization itself), but not saying he's a philanthropist in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The SPI case here

I noticed that you blocked Zeremony, but I have some questions regarding the sockmaster. As far as I can determine, you CU'd Zeremony against LoveFerguson (and some other accounts listed here under "Group 1") but did not perform a CU against AndresHerutJaim/NoCal/Wlglunight93. Andres has no non-stale sock, but NoCal has All Rows4 and Silver surprise, and Wlglunight93's last socks were Averysoda and ISavedPvtRyan.

Right now, they seem to be standalone socks, unrelated to others in this area? If my understanding is correct, this is not totally right. My suspicion is that LoveFerguson/Zeremony etc. actually socks of Wlglunight93. It would be helpful if this could be checked and connected up, because all of these socks are prolific, and it is good to know their latest incarnations for CU or other purposes. If you want, I can open a new SPI with evidence but the Zeremony one already contains a lot of diffs connecting LoveFerguson and Wlglunight93. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you spoken with Vanjagenije? When he endorsed the CU, he asked me to compare certain accounts, and one of them was not Wlglunight93.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't talked to them. I will follow this matter up with them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Church Of The Lunar Eclipse

Sorry If I come off as a bit cross but why would you delete a page that talks about my religion? I created the page out of a want and a need to have it be heard, I am deeply offended that you think my religion is a hoax, that you think its not fit to be on this website. I'm sorry if you couldn't see that as a religion, it is just as valid as any other, and I apologize for our religions retention of information about itself, I just felt as though a small page could do no harm. I felt as though it was something we deserved as a group. DatJason324 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Project Numbat

Hi Bbb23, I am contacting you about deleting the following page I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Numbat

This was the first page on Wikipedia I created. I can accept it wasn't perfect but I do contest it being deleted. The page described the importance of this not-for-profit group in helping to save the numbat from extinction. I would like to know why an important contributor to the future of Australian wildlife, that is acknowledged as a key stakeholder by a federal state departement such as the Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, and by a globally recognised research institute such as Perth Zoo, does not deserve to have its own Wikipedia page? Thanks for getting back to me.

Eveline Ememasco (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Eveline, there are a lot of worthy organizations in the world. Many though do not merit an article on Wikipedia because their claim of importance is simply not significant enough from a broader perspective to justify an article in an encylcopedia. I'm sure you know there are many organizations dedicated to various causes, animals, plants, etc., but Wikipedia cannot entertain articles about such organizations unless they stand out in a way other than simply the positive aspects of their cause. If you wish, though, I can WP:USERFY the article, meaning restore it to your userspace so you can work on it some more. Then, after you're done, instead of moving it directly back to article space, you would submit it as a draft to WP:AFC so other editors can comment on its suitability for Wikipedia and give you feedback. If that's what you decide, I recommend you tone down the advertising-like quality of the article. Although I didn't delete it per WP:CSD#G11, it came close. When you write it, try to be someone who doesn't care about the numbat but just wants to write a netural article about the project. Let me know if you want me to restore it in the way I described.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Alison Butterworth

Hello there. I created a page on a BBC Presenter who is a high profile radio personality in the North West of England. Can you explain why it has been deleted for being a form of advertising please? This is definitely not the case and it is purely an information page concerning that person. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaChris69 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Overall it read like a resume/advertisement. It was casually drafted like a folksy blog: "including being awoken in the early hours of a September morning to go into work to research and prepare obituary programmes on Princess Diana"; "That consolidated a love of interacting with real folk on the radio."; "Alison returned to work at BBC Radio Lancashire following the birth of two babies in two years." It is probably also deletable per WP:CSD#A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

re:

Not something I do very often - it has to be pretty obvious for me to dust off those tools. Thx for the support. — Ched :  ?  05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Narcissism and Homosexuality

Dear Bbb23,

On September 29th I added a paragraph entitled "Narcissism and Homosexuality" on the "Homosexuality" page. Later that day you delelted that section on the grounds that I do not own the the rights to the refence I gave. What kind of permission should I attach in order to prove that the author gave me his permission to use his article.

Barak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't easy. Read WP:COPYREQ for help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research in article "Uniformitarianism"

Thank you for your help in the 3RR/edit warring noticeboard concerning the article above.[22]

Would it be possible to have a notification or statement from you, either on the talk page or noticeboard, positing clearly that Hal2k1 is in breach of WP:NOR? Though ostensibly in good faith, Hal2k1 continues to claim that he intends to modify the article in accordance with his original research. He has already been informed clearly of his breach of wikipedia policy by other users ([[23]] and [[24]]), but input from an administrator would help settle this dispute once and for all.

Thank you in advance. Cartesian5712 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Another administrator has made a finding at WP:AN3. Nothing further is required as far as I can tell. However, if the disruption resumes, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Carried over from Berean Hunter's talk page

I feel like I've ransacked his talk page so decided to just move over here (plus those little fencing men things getting in the way all the time are really annoying) . I'll still leave it till I'm back from my weekend but, do thank you for your help with this (and *lol* at your 'never heard of common sense' comment). I have done a lot of thinking recently (and have also seen first-hand recently) and see how discussing rather than being a hot-headed, arrogant, sarcastic, reverting jerk can actually help move things along faster. We haven't had the greatest run-ins in the past, you and I (because of me, not you), but, I'm trying (though don't expect the sarcasm to just disappear, that's my style and always has been/will be). :-) Bye for now. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Cebr1979 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

More Evlekis?

Would you mind checking User:ThisGuyIsGreat and User:Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked, and I seriously doubt it. At one point in his edits the technical details match, but he's editing from a different continent. From what I can see, assuming he's not a sock, he edited under different IP addresses with garden-variety and seemingly random vandalism. He then created this account and trolled. I'd guess he's a kid.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My edit was was not worthy of reversion

Hello B. Since both you and Ponyo receive more than enough nonsense on your talk pages I can understand your reverting this. But, even though the IPs edits were nonsense, I thought it was worth Ponyo's being able to check the claim that this was a sock of someone. That is why I took the time to put the edits together. Ponyo and I have worked together before on tracking down socks. You and I have as well way back to this editor long ago. I reverted on P's page before posting here so if that is my mistake plz revert again. I know that bulls are color blind so the red cape is just for show. I wish the red dot didn't have the effect that the cape doesn't. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Rats. My edit summary was in error. I fear that our interaction leaves you thinking I am a dilettante of an editor. Hopefully that will change down the road. My apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. First, Ponyo will know I reverted (and blocked the IP). Second, I was very careful in my edit summary to say "Rv ip" so it was clear that you weren't the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Zeroxziggles

Hi Bbb23, Thank you for your action in investigating this sockpuppetry account. I'm bit curious as you have blocked some of the accounts such as this User:Devhalo and User:ElrondPestano, I have just checked at the edits of both account and it appears they don't have direct edits to Vmoney inc or Vmoney, or any direct involvement in suspecting the sock behaviour. Is it normal for a checkuser to block multiple accounts without evidence of edits? But there might be a serious concern since there could be more than one person using the same IP Address as I'm unable to predetermine the evidence of the mentioned accounts to accuse them of abusing multiple accounts. Any comments are appreciated in regards to this topic. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Devhalo edited Vmoney and VMoney. The other account had no edits, but the technical evidence was compelling. In those circumstances, I decide whether I should block the account pre-emptively so it can't be used.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: According to this it showed no record of edits to the respective articles. I can't see it. If you have a special privileges to see these post, that would be enough of evidence to prove that Devhalo is liability to use of multiple accounts abusively. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Only administrators can see deleted contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Gringoladomenega / PhilStar01 is evading block and edit warring in Léo (footballer, born 1990). SLBedit (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I'm not sure that threatening to block a throwaway zombie account if they continue their mischief at SPI [25] is likely to have much effect. A glance at the user's contribution history is suggestive.

We know that WoW and other game accounts are bought and sold on various trading boards. I expect that Wikipedia credentials can be bought in the same neighborhood. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Seeds of Learning

I noticed you deleted my Seeds of Learning page. I am wondering why you think it is not a credible article? Is there something else I can add when I recreate this page? How can I add to it to make it less likely to get deleted? Thanks, Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelweinerth (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it's not credible. The criterion for deletion states that it does not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." It sounds like a worthy organization, but Wikipedia doesn't ahve articles about organizations just because they are worthy. There has to be some indication that it is recognized in a significant way for being worthy. My suggestion is that you don't just recreate it. Instead, I can move it as a draft to your userspace. Then you can work on it and there will be directions on how to submit the proposed article to WP:AFC so that more experienced editors can give you feedback on whether the organization is sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's standards. Let me know if that's what you wish me to do. For my edification, can you please tell me what "Women of Wikipedia" is?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinu523

Hi. So why would an anon IP editor edit this page at all? I don't understand. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If an IP wants to open or reopen an SPI, there are specific instructions at WP:SPI on how to do that. The IP, in this case, followed those instructions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI from jeh

I requested SP. Don't know if it'll be granted - I read that it's rarely done for user talk pages. Jeh (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: You didn't need to do that. My question meant I was willing to do it for you. Still am. I just need to know the duration you'd like. It can be shortish and then renewed if after expiration the attacks continue, or it can be longer. It's not a big deal.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh. If a week isn't too long, let's do that. If not, then whatever you're comfortable wtih under that. Jeh (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)