User talk:Bbb23/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Block of Tarkattack

Hello,

I'm a little confused about your recent indefinite block of Tarkattack (talk · contribs). I blocked him previously for misuse of his user page. He then created the Tarkspark (talk · contribs) and used the thanks tool while blocked, which while a form of block evasion, was a trivial one, so I indef'd the sock account and left my original block in place as noted at User talk:Tarkspark. His block then expired and he made further edits on the 5 February, which you responded to by carrying out a checkuser and blocking their account. From what I can see, while some were problematic, they did not amount to vandalism. I also think it's a bit late now, and potentially confusing for the blocked user, to retrospectively block them for the Tarkspark account after it had already been dealt with by myself. In any case, I haven't seen anything which I think merits an indef block. Given that you imposed a checkuser block, I'm assuming there was other abuse discovered which is not immediately apparent. I would appreciate some clarification on this. Many thanks, CT Cooper · talk 01:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps your and my idea of what constitutes "abuse" is different; it certainly doesn't have to be vandalism. What originally caught my eye was a change he made to the protection policy, although frankly I couldn't tell if it was vandalism or incompetence. The stuff you objected to on his userpage was very disruptive. I don't look at the accounts in isolation as they belong to one person - I look at the person. Is there something worth saving here in terms of a benefit to the project? Still, if you want me to unblock the master account, I'm willing. Or you can unblock him yourself. Whichever is better for your purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, so there was no other abuse and the checkuser only told us what was already known? Lets get one thing straight here – I didn't say his edits weren't problematic, they were, which is why I gave him a one week block. I didn't see his post-block edits before your intervention, however, those and prior edits aren't the issue here, because you didn't block him for that reason – you issued a checkuser block for abusing multiple accounts. Under WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, block reasons must be clear and well justified for the benefit of the blocked user and other users who review such actions; if you blocked him for other reasons you should have stated those other reasons. If you thought I was giving undue leniency to the user, you should have informed me on my talk page, either before taking action yourself or within a short time afterwards. As it stands, I see no grounds for an indefinite block of Tarkattack. Yes, this user is close to exhausting all their chances, but they have made some productive edits even if they don't overcome a cost/benefit analysis, so I'm not writing them off just yet.
I wasn't going to undo your block without at least informing you, as I do try and give courtesy to other admins, even when such courtesy is not received. Regardless, as it was a checkuser block, I couldn't unilaterally undo it anyway without permission of either the blocking checkuser or the Arbitration Committee as per this resolution. As you have given permission, I will be undoing the block shortly and informing the user of the situation. Thank you for getting back to me swiftly. CT Cooper · talk 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"courtesy is not received"? I didn't unblock someone you blocked. I didn't undo any action you performed. I may have "undone" your approach, but that's hardly the same thing, and your inference that I did so to interfere in your actions is false. It's not my style.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar

Sorry for scr*wing up when typing the report, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet when I did that... /Tom Thomas.W talk 14:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the little brother drank my coffee excuse? You have been indefinitely coffee-blocked from participating in the SPI training. The standard offer applies. If you keep your caffeine clean, you may request an unblock in six months. BTW, I haven't had the courage to look. What's going on with the training anyway? Is it still in limbo?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing's going on with the training. There's a whole bunch of throw-away accounts on Norse religion (the redlinked usernames in the page history) that seem to fit the MO of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnhoppan, btw, accounts that have made edits similar to, but not identical to, the edits made by Mughal Lohar socks, and obviously can't be linked to Mughal Lohar since they weren't caught in your CU-checks. Should I file a report? Thomas.W talk 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You can file a report with whatever master you feel fits best, but don't assume a CU check magically captures all related accounts. It's much more nuanced than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

I have placed an unblock request at User talk:96.237.20.21 on hold. You did not post an unblock message on the IP talk page, and in the block log you merely gave "Disruptive editing" as the reason, so it is not immediately obvious why you blocked. I therefore checked all the recent edits from that IP address, and I didn't see anything that obviously merited a block, but you may have noticed something that I missed. The blocked editor is apparently under the impression that the block was because of recent editing at User talk:BoxOfChickens, but that appears to have been a good-faith attempt to remove a personal attack, which you yourself subsequently removed, so that can scarcely have been the reason. (As far as I am aware, administrators have no more more right to remove personal attacks from talk pages than any other editors.) Besides, if that were what you objected to, that one incident could scarcely justify a week's block. Most other editing has been perfectly constructive, and the few exceptions seem to me to have been good-faith even if ill-advised edits, that would be dealt with by a friendly message, rather than a block. I am at a loss to see anything that would justify any sort of block, let alone a week-long block without any explanation to the editor as to what the problem was; however, as I said above, you may have noticed something that I missed, and if so then I will be very grateful if you can point out what it was. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The user is a troll and they are part of a series of many similar IPs. They meddle in things that don't concern them, including archiving an SPI (that's the reason they were blocked by Vanjagenije before), slapping block notices on user pages, and changing the status of sock user pages. This is not the only IP I've blocked for these reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this IP is an obvious sock. Looking at their edits, it is not possible for a brand new user to know about SPI, AIV, VPR and similar venues. As soon as they appeared, they started clerking at those pages ([1][2][3]). It is not usual for a new user to even know about the existence of those pages, let alone how to properly menage them. When asked why he was archiving a SPI page, they said that they were looking at WP:SPI for RapAuthority. RapAuthority is a blocked sockpuppet, and I don't know why a new user would start his editing by looking for RapAuthority. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks to both of you, Bbb23 and Vanjagenije for clarifying things. I had (perhaps naively) put things like archiving an SPI and putting block notices on user pages as misguided but good-faith attempts to help, but if there is a history of similar stuff from other IP addresses, and previous blocks, then that changes the whole picture. A very good example of why it's a good idea to check with the blocking admin before taking action, in case there is something the blocking admin knows that isn't obvious to a newcomer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, in answer to Vanjagenije saying "it is not possible for a brand new user to know about SPI, AIV, VPR and similar venues", I totally agree, and I never thought it was a new user. A new IP address does not necessarily mean either a new user or a sockpuppet: before I created this account my IP address used to change pretty frequently, and there are editors who have edited for years without an account, so that they do know all about stuff like that. They are a very small minority of IP editors, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that knowing about things of that sort is in itself proof of wrongdoing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr Boot

Sorry about my screwup on the SPI title. Meters (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't hard to fix. It just took me a little time to figure out what the correct spelling was.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Destiny Leo (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How to respond.

RE: Transportfan70, please respond to my request at the SPI. If you don't, you risk being blocked for having multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What do I have to click on to respond? I really don't know how to do this contact stuff. Transportfan70 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How to add a blocked sockpuppet to the SPI archive

There is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Kaz that is not listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz/Archive. The sock is/was User:Kazimir hubert; who was blocked on 21:27, 27 July 2015 by User:Someguy1221.[4]

How do we add this to the archive?

Thanks for all the good work you do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The short answer is we don't. It happens all the time. However, if it's somehow relevant to an existing SPI in the case, you can mention it. I haven't looked at this particular situation, but, for example, if you request a CU and it appears that all the blocked socks in the archives are stale and yet you know of a non-stale puppet that was blocked outside the SPI, you should reference it so your request is not declined on the basis that everyone is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
How old does a sock have to be to be stale?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
☹ thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I keep an off-wikipedia list of obvious socks I block. I don't reopen and file them at the SPI. I wait until someone else files a new account then I add what I have on my list. If the SPI is never reopened, the item(s) just sit on this list indefinitely. I do, in fact, post at the blocked usertalk saying "You are obviously [[User:Mastername]]" for a whatlinkshere papertrail. Is this okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Sounds okay to me. You didn't mention it, but if you don't already, I would tag the userpage because that will put the puppet in one of the master's categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I sometimes do, but should more. If they are serious POVers working mainspace content, I almost always do. But, some are clearly in DENY territory. But, I will henceforth try to get into a good tagging habit. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing similarities

When you have a moment, would you please take a look at this edit history? I came across an edit that mimics several features of sockpupeteer Mckburton's editing pattern (e.g. here, here, here), including: (1) placing the 'External links' section before the 'References' section; (2) directly placing the article into the WikiProject France articles and WikiProject Europe articles categories; (3) inserting multiple French-language external links; and (4) adding the article directly to a stub category instead of using a stub template. Also, the account was created just four days after Mckburton was blocked. It is just the one link so far as far as I can tell and I admit it is not damning evidence. In fact, I hope I am wrong since I cannot readily see evidence of disruptive editing by the new account. Still, I would like to check with someone more experienced with SPI whether this merits further investigation. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: The account is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. I'm just curious. The account hasn't edited since December 11, 2015. What made you notice it now? Perhaps an article you were looking at the history of?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of mainspace pages in the WikiProject France articles category (instead of their talk pages) and investigated further how they had gotten there. I saw that several were added by Mckburton, saw from his contributions history that he was blocked as a sockpuppeteer, looked more closely at the other impacted pages, and noticed the similarities between his and Terryntino's edits. Thank you for addressing this! -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting the page Budbrooke. I was unaware of the 3RR myself whilst reverting the new editors contributions myself so I am guilty of that. However now you've protected it the page should be safer against non-referenced claims :-) Cls14 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:D.R Neal G

Comment Can you explain to me exactly how I disruptive, attack, and violate Wikipedia polices? Please give an example or can't you. my talk page. D.R Neal G (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered there. GABHello! 01:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


* Further Comment Again what personal attack? considering I have alter text several time to be more neutral and objective. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of past and present entries on pages. I have made several changes to adhere to the rules (self-correcting) and be objective. But I must state at no time have I have made a personal attack on anyone, period. I have wrote about the appearance of a inanimate object, a building to be precise, but that not a person.user:D.R Neal G —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just want to say sorry that...

...we seem to have been disagreeing at the edit-warring noticeboard. You know from our past talk-page correspondence that I respect your work very much and I know that you're a serious, productive, responsible editor, as I hope you think I am. I can tell from your last posting on that page that sometimes you might get impatient with me, and that very honestly makes me feel bad since you're of good will and a hard worker on improving this altruistic free encyclopedia. For what it's worth, and knowing how much admins have to put up with, I want to apologize if I've caused any aggravation. And I also want to say that seeing that incredibly gorgeous French countryside on your page is always a good experience. With sincere regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. Really. I know you act in good faith even if we disagree sometimes. Maybe reflect a little on my comments and those of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Two different people.

I had not seen this request of yours until today. I am quite surprised at the conclusion, since Mrwallace05 has been interested in older music such as Elvis Presley from the '50s and '60s, as well as classic prog rock from the '70s, while MariaJaydHicky pushes the R&B genre onto music from the 2000s and 2010s. I would say that these two persons are separated in age by three or four decades. I can't help but think your conclusion is based on some squishy link that connects the cases, for instance a public library terminal. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"squishy link"? Good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Last chance

This is your last chance. You will not going to have CheckUser rights! Case closed! Tarkattack (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, @CT Cooper and Materialscientist: This edit and the CU logs indicate that Tarkattack should be blocked indefinitely for evading a previous block. I won't make the block myself, but one of you might want to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: I'm very aware of the problems with Tarkattack. See this discussion between CT Coooper and me about my block of Tarkattack. I was not aware of the issue you linked to, though. Since CT Cooper left Tarkattack a stern warning after unblocking him with my permission (see section entitled not coincidentally "Last chance" on Tarkattack's Talk page), Tarkattack has made a few problematic edits. There's the one to the protection policy that you, DoRD, reverted. Not the first time he edited that page. There's an edit he made to the Tarkspark userpage - also reverted by DoRD. And then there's the logged out edit he made to a file Talk page that CT Cooper reverted. Based on CT Cooper's contribution history, he probably hasn't seen the protection policy edit or the post here today. I thought that Tarkattack deserved and indefinite block when I blocked him. That belief has only been strengthened. However, I don't feel comfortable reblocking him. Leaves a wheel warring taste in my mouth, not a pleasant taste. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I read that discussion, which is why I left things as I did. (I only became aware of the situation from seeing Tarkattack's "warning" above.) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I just realized, now that the caffeine has taken effect, that this case is related, so I will be blocking them after all. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: You and your coffee. :-) I saw the possible connection to the other account in my first check, but perhaps you saw more than I did. In my view, regardless of any other issues, this person is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: While I have been actively monitoring Tarkattack's activity, as Bbb23 points out, I was not online when he made his most recent edits. I would have indefinitely blocked him as soon as I viewed them and I have no objection to yourself or another administrator getting there first. I don't regret giving Tarkattack a last chance, but they clearly blow it, so an indefinite block is the only appropriate response. A last chance is a last chance after all. I was also growing suspicious that this was not his first account, particularly after the HTMLCAN edit, though this and the Tarkspark (talk · contribs) account were too trivial to draw any conclusions so I decided to let things play out. They now have. CT Cooper · talk 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Unbeknownst discussion

Hey, I just found this discussion[5] about my edits to Fast Low-Ionization Emission Region. Did I do something wrong here? Boomer VialHolla 04:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP thought you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that much is painfully obvious, considering this smoldering edit summary[6] the editor left in their 3RR-violating revert. Judging by your response, that was a no?

Downfall of Nur

You reverted the {{db-band}} tag on Downfall of Nur, claiming in your edit summary:

not an A7 if he works with a major record label

The actual requirements of WP:MUSIC are that the band has released multiple albums on a major record label. I don't see that Avantgarde Music is considered a "major record label", nor that DoN have released more than one album on this label. But sure, we can take it to AFD instead. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The threshold for speedy delete and AfD are different. If a label has an article here, I'm not going analyze whether it qualifies as "major".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Rahul SPI

I tried to use the automated Twinkle tool, and it apparently screwed up. Yes, Rahul appears to be the sockmaster, because Rahul is the subject of the autobiography that is being pushed. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think that it's Twinkle's fault, you should report it. Rahul is the master because the account is older.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I know I drive you nuts and I'm sorry but...

...you are actually the admin I respect the most (even with our history - regardless of what I've ever said in the past, you were right and I wasn't - it took some time but, I know that)...

Anywho... today I blanked the pages of two user talk pages: User talk:Beth Logan & User talk:Alia1990.

I know someone should never blank a user talk page that isn't their own but, both were re-directed to List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters, which makes/made no sense so... why should it not have been removed, right? There was nothing else on either (and I did check) so...

Anyways, I just sorta thought now that... should someone notice and inquire at least I've explained my reasoning to someone (albeit after the fact and, should I be questioned on it, I won't keep that fact secret).

Thanks for listening and, as I've said in the past, if you don't want me coming to you with... whatever... feel free to say so and (with no hard feelings) I'll venture elsewhere. Cheers.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. With so much white screen at the top, I just had a heart attack thinking I'd somehow blanked your talk page after saving that post! Hahahah - PHEW! Heart pace almost back to normal...Cebr1979 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Your memory is obviously better than mine as to our past interaction. Of course, if you want to provide me with diffs that you've driven me nuts ... :-) The Beth Logan talk page was deletable per WP:CSD#U2, and it was tagged accordingly; I deleted it. Nothing wrong with what you did to the other talk page. Wasn't necessary, but it doesn't matter, either. As for my talk page, please don't have a heart attack no matter what you do to it. Seems a bit excessive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was kidding about the heart attack - lol... in reality: just sorta made me pause for a sec like, "Oh, sh*t... What'd I just do?" I'm not gonna go look for diffs showing when I was... when I was... I'm not gonna go look for diffs, just trust me: I haven't been agreeable... ;-) Thanks, nonetheless. I won't come-a-runnin' over every little thing, it's just nice to know there's someone around for those "Hmm... maybe better check..." moments. Thanks, again!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Good Boy Gone Bad Tour/Archive

Did I do the right thing starting an SPI on this, or is there a more proper way to handle these? I wasn't really sure if SPI was the correct path, but I knew something probably needed to be done. Thank you for taking care of it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Uncle Milty: You did the right thing. You're a very good SPI filer. Your presentation of evidence is great.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall continue to forge ahead then. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory

I note that you have closed the case against the latest alleged sock, User:Wowser Bowser, as "unrelated". Without wishing to carp, it may be illuminating to examine the user's edit history. The only two articles (other than the user's own page) which the editor changed were the Capture of HMS Penguin and Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant which were so relentlessly stuffed with inaccurate original research by User:UnbiasedVictory and socks. Also, the edit summary for that to the Capture of HMS Penguin reads Edit based off previous versions of this article; similar to my contribution to the HMS Cyane and Levant article. Given that the editor had not at that time touched the Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant, then either a mistake had been made, or less charitably, the editor was referring to a previous edit by another sock.

I will wait and see of course, but if the user's edit pattern closely matches that of UnbiasedVictory's other socks, I may have to ask for the case to be reopened, on behavioural evidence. HLGallon (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't close it. I archived it after it was closed. Nor did I find it was unrelated. Another CheckUser did that.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. HLGallon (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the mix-up, guys. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Wowser Bowser (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)}}

Coruptia socks

Hello. I would like to ask you and MelanieN (since you handled the relevant SPI) what you think is going on with this user. Is it another sock from this bunch? I spotted it because it added an unblock request "on behalf" of Unguriu... but at the same time, its first edit is a puzzling but seemingly benign tweak to the SPI archive's page. LjL (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, he now just signed itself as Unguriu so I guess that removes every uncertainty. Should I open another chapter in the SPI or can we skip that part? LjL (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to open another SPI referral. I think it's useful to have a record of all socks in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. But I see they have already been blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". I'd be curious to hear Bbb23's comments on whether such cases should be investigated and recorded in the archive, or simply blocked per WP:DUCK. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: it's fixed for now though because ‎Jpgordon blocked and did the checkuser thing, and I tagged as socks and undid the edits. They're still making unblock requests on behalf of each other, but whatever. It's somewhat funny seeing them filed and then denied even to addresses that weren't actually blocked yet in the first place (see 5.13.228.18‎). LjL (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Jpgordon did a CU? The block is not listed as a Checkuser block, and the userpage still just says "suspected" sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: uh, maybe I spilled some beans... check his talk page, though. The "suspected sockpuppet" template was added by me. Maybe I should just go ahead and re-SPI the whole thing, especially given what just forcibly stopped happening at User talk:Unguriu‎. LjL (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't take any further action until you get advised by Bbb23 or Jpgordon. They are experienced admins and checkusers, and they know a lot better than I do how these things should be handled. We can both learn something. BTW I see that you deleted this sock's comment from the AfD discussion; I think the usual practice would be to leave their comment, but strike it through as a blocked sock. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I actually asked Jpgordon how I should proceed about that and he said there's some template or another to tag it but he didn't remember which one specifically, and that he was fine with just having it deleted, so I went ahead and did it. I think I will ask for page protection on their list of 3D cities, too, if they come up with any more socks to edit it, before they add any more YouTube links as "references". LjL (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at any of the details of this, but, generally, LjL, you should not tag accounts. Jp often doesn't tag accounts he blocks, and that's his decision, not anyone else's. MelanieN, addressing your question earlier in this discussion, you should almost never edit the archives. If you want to note something for the record, then you reopen the SPI and say that's what you're doing. If it were you, as an administrator, you could even note it and close it all at the same time. However, it's not necessary to note something for the record. I sometimes do it, but it's a judgment call, e.g., I block a great many socks outside the SPI, not just one or two. Everyone's judgment, though, isn't necessarily the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23, that's the education I was looking for! --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to add here, but "Coruptia Socks" sounds very much like Veruca Salt's even more unpleasant cousin. Anmccaff (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, the long memories that people have here! Just now, I glanced at "Coruptia socks" and misread the last word by one letter, and it sounded like the type of comment generally made here by middle school students. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the not tagging socks thing? At Category:Sockpuppet templates, there are both templates with documentation stating they should only be used by blocking admins, and ones that use wordings such as "a user suspects this account of being a sock". These can be used with varying levels of certainly (Template:Sockpuppet has options for "suspected", "SPI in progress" etc), and I've only stayed at the "user-suspected with bits of my own evidence" level while tagging. LjL (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Heh, you're getting into my least favorite area of being a CheckUser and a former SPI clerk: template confusion. The short answer is I don't much care what the templates say they're supposed to be used for and by whom. I don't think that non-admins or non-clerks (unless they are admins) should tag accounts. I have never seen the utility of tagging an account as a suspected puppet or "expressed a concern" before there is a finding the user is a sock. For one thing, the user, as long as they are not blocked for other reasons, can legitimately remove the tag. For another, if you've filed an SPI, then await the outcome. If you haven't filed an SPI, why not? Nor should you be tagging after a finding or a block. If you think the userpage should be tagged, then bring it to the attention of the blocking administrator. It's not your call.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Socky vibe...

Hey B. This guy is giving me some socky vibes, but I'm at a loss for where to begin. Does any of the following behavior stand out to you? Stuff like this, where he uses "nigger" for no apparent reason, as are edits like these where he seems interested in having editors banned. This IP flagged him as a sock, although I wonder if they're not the same person. Promotional Attack asks if Meltdown is a banned user. He also flags this article as a hoax, using some weird explanation about "Assistant has detected this article as a possible hoax. Any mistakes? Contact me to notify my assistant." I don't get the sense that they're here to be constructive. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb: (Long time, no see - how're you?) As for Promotional Attack, I'm not sure on the sock side of things (my ducky sense isn't tingling) but I can kind of see them being less than constructive. They seemed innocent enough in my interaction with them, but they did end up tagging an article as an attack page, where it was clearly an A7.. -- samtar whisper 22:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Samtar - Aaaaaaand he was blocked by the astute Callanecc for good-hand/bad-hand editing. I still got it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's someone's sock, the knowledge of Wikipedia ins and outs in the first few edits (notifying someone about an AN/I discussion without having edited AN/I), plus other stuff. But the good-hand/bad-hand was very obvious once I had CU results as well as their own edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocking WikiBulova

Hi, you blocked WikiBulova and Zaman.hadad today at SPI [7]. I took a look at both accounts and in my view any blocks are unwarranted. Zaman.hamad was created three weaks after WikiBulova ceased editing. Since multiple accounts are allowed and no illegitimate editing has taken place using the two, I believe the entire SPI report was wrong. The reporting editor also did not bother to warn either accounts. To clarify, I have nothing to do with WikiBulova - he maliciously took me to ANI at one point - I just have him on my watchlist. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 19:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your concept of abusive or disruptive editing, and there is no requirement to warn anyone at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Then a block should be given for disruptive editing and not for sockpuppetry as the accounts did no socking whatsoever. Cutting policy corners? And what sort of supposedly "my" concept you have in mind? — kashmiri TALK 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kashmiri, your understanding of WP:SOCK is flawed. You cannot disregard various policies, get called out for the disruption, and then just create a new account to continue the same disruption. It's outright socking and violates several points of WP:ILLEGIT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo Thanks, I saw this particular case in the terms of WP:CLEANSTART as there were no problems reported with the new account or its edits. Actually, the new account looked like a genuine clean start exactly as described in that policy, also that it seemed to use the editor's real name (?). Anyhow, I see I am minority here and the issue is not that relevant to my interests, so I shouldn't perhaps drag the discussion. But revisiting the accounts' edits and the sanction by another admin would be fair IMHO. — kashmiri TALK 11:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How do we add the following to the list?

Hello Bbb23 - I have gathered several of Aubmn's sockpuppets not listed in investigation on him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aubmn/Archive

However, I am not sure where to put them and if I, not being an administrator, can.

Alwaysgreen - an Aubmn's sockpuppet: not mentioned nor listed as such
Broums - not blocked
Justicebm - an Aubmn's sockpuppet: not mentioned nor listed as such
Michebassil - an Aubmn's sockpuppet: not mentioned nor listed as such
Newqueen - blocked as Aubmn's dock (!) (either 'duck' or 'sock'), but not listed at investigation
Newqueen2 - saa
Pirategreen - an Aubmn's sockpuppet: not mentioned nor listed as such
Thesaviourblue - an Aubmn's sockpuppet: not mentioned nor listed as such

On occasions, our masterpuppeteer forgets to sign in with a new sockname & the IP (this one being the latest) always tracks him here [8].

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: Broums is now blocked and tagged, along with a few others I spotted while checking Broums. You don't have to do anything with the accounts. However, if you want to note them for the record, reopen the SPI, list them, and say that's what you're doing. Usually, a clerk will then close it, which is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23! Will follow your advice and turn back to you if more happens in which I may need your help.
In the meantime, maybe you would not mind adding Georgeparry22 to the list. My God! How negatively busy that guy is!
Have a good day! --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a list per se.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Need clarification.

Hello Bbb23. Following the SPI which Winkelvi filed, you blocked Jilllyjo as she was a confirmed sockpuppet. On her talk page, it states that she has been blocked "temporarily", with no set time. I presumed that all socks were blocked indefinitely, so is this the same as an indefinite block? I am confused. Kindest regards, --Ches (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a mistake, although I'm not sure how it happened. Anyhow, I fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. Best, --Ches (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Si 363

Sorry mate looks like we had an edit conflict on Si 363 and a timing of save issue on Silanes. I hope all is good now?  !Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD malarkey?

Hey, Bbb23 – I just wanted to give you a heads up that a number of new (as in created within the last 24 hours or so) have popped up today and headed directly to AfD with their first edits... (Sidenote: Were you aware that there is a User talk:Bb23 account? Seems suspicious, unless it's a doppelganger of yours...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: You have to tell me some of the accounts. Otherwise, there's no way I can look into it. Bb23 was created and edited once in 2007. That's before I created an account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Got it – CaligirlTay89 and Jimhorts were the two that come immediately to mind. There may be a third, but it looks like I didn't look up their Contribution history. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There were two more. I've blocked and tagged all four.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia

I'm very sorry to be a bother but I seen you were the one who locked the zootopia page. I'm new and don't understand the workings of this site fully but I wanted to make a small edit request that you might be able to handle. In the plot tab the word "furries" is used several times to describe the characters. I'm not sure if this was done by someone not knowing any better or if it was apparent trolling.

Thank you for your time,

Lennon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennon-Surcot (talk • contribs) 10:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection will expire on the Talk page on February 22.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and massive violations of BLP/extremely disruptive editing

Could you please check if User:Ihateloganville is indeed user:IHateJaredTaylor? Similiar writing style, and edits about racism as in saying Loganville's students are racist and that Jared Taylor is a liar and racist. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Apontih and User:Lunacornin are more benign, actually positive. But they seem to be here for the same purpose editing with eachother perfectly. Perhaps indefblock the sock and warn the original account? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Lunacornin is the master. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI questions

Hi Bbb23. I some questions about question about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha/Archive.

  1. There were two IPs that I considered adding to the original report: Special:Contributions/90.213.220.206 and Special:Contributions/90.213.63.36. Each IP made similar edits to File:Sheffield FC.svg and Sheffield F.C. Ladies that were made to the same pages by SevcoFraudster. The IPs were warned about this by another admin in this edit sum when the admin protected the page. I wasn't sure when I posted the original SPI whether these IPs were worth adding; however, now that you've found and blocked more socks than the three originally listed, it's possible that these IPs may be used to avoid these blocks. Do you think these should be added to the SPI and if so how should I do that?
  2. Both SevcoTeehee and Rangers died, Sevco lied made edits to ongoing WP:FFD discussions here and here. These FFD discussions don't partiuclarly involve the deletion of a file per se, but they do involve whether the non-free usage of certain files is appropraite in certain articles. I believe that "sock" !Votes are typically removed or discounted in AfD discussions, but not sure if that applies to FFD. Should these posts be removed, stricken or tagged in someway to show they were made by socks?
  3. Special:Contributions/Sevcoteehee , in particular, made a series of edits prior to being blocked that re-added images to articles or re-added non-free use rationales to files, despite their being previously removed as the result of NFCR/FFD discussions. Sevcoteehee gave "Per: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_63#Thoughts_on_a_new_NFC.2UUI_item, no consensus was reached for this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANon-free_content&type=revision&diff=612425766&oldid=609882531" as the reason in many of their edit sums which pretty much verbatim as [9] and [10] made by another editor a few days earlier to two of the same articles. I think Sevcoteehee probably just saw the other editor's edit sums and decided to copy them for the edits they made, but even so many of the edits made were not really consistent with WP:NFCC and in some cases contrary to admin closes of prior NFCR/FDD discussions. Can these edits be reverted or would that be considered DE or EW? Can anyone revert these edits if they can be reverted or does it have to be an admin? I think they should be reverted, but I don't want to violate any policy/guideline in doing so.

Anyway, any suggestions you may have on the above would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. The edits are too stale to do anything. We don't generally preemptively block.
  2. If more than one puppet participates in the same discussion (pretty much any "voting" discussion), it's a good idea to point it out and link to the SPI.
  3. I don't see why you can't revert these changes yourself if you're comfortable that they violate an administrator's close. However, I haven't looked at the details, so if you want to be absolutely safe, you can ask the closing administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23. No problem with #1; it makes perfect sence. Regarding #2, FfD discussions are listed/archived according to date, unlike Afd discussions which are listed by article. So, often you have multiple discussions ongoing concurrently on the same "page", just in different sections. So even though the discussions may be different, the socks have technically edited the same "page". Does that make a difference? Does it also matter if the !votes were made prior to the SPI be started and the socks being blocked? Finally, I did discuss #3 with one of the closing admins and they gave basically the same advice. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The idea in voting discussions is people shouldn't get to vote twice. How you point that out to people is up to you. It may be more complicated, but I'm sure it can be done with links. Nothing requires you to do so. It doesn't matter when they voted, only that they've been confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Understand. It's sort of a moot point now since another editor added notes and links to the SPI to each of the FFD post that were made. Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Biggest Loser Kentucky

Draft:My Page :) The biggest loser Kentucky sockpuppet is back. --Whpq (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Question re:Jilllyjo

Why do we owe any consideration to abusive sockpuppeteers that have hounded good content creators and make up ludicrous stories attempting to explain away clear-cut checkuser results? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A blocked user is entitled, just like any user, to ban editors from their Talk page. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
My question would be regarding the fact that there's almost zero chance he'll ever be unblocked, given the evidence that he's W17, and his ludicrous "explanations" of why the CU gave the results it did. He's still maintaining that farce, and "banning" folks that call him out on it, now including Ches. I just don't think he should be enabled in his nonsense. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is irrelevant to the issue of your posting to the Talk page. At this point Jilllyjo hasn't crossed the line to where I would revoke Talk page access. He can ban you from the Talk page. He can ban Ches from the Talk page. They are within their rights to do so. I suggest you let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The question I had was why a user who has been indef'd for being an abusive sockpuppet is to be shown any consideration with regards to who s/he can "ban" from posting on the talkpage. You've answered with the fact that Jilllyjo is allowed to do so without answering why that's the case. Perhaps no one knows why such an indef'd editor would be allowed to do that? If that's the case, and there's actually no reasonable explanation of why, then I guess that's that. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia's death

Per talk page, John B. Poindexter is the man who found Antonin Scalia dead and made the "natural causes" proclimation. Please clarify your removal of the name Cibolo Creek Ranch owner, where Scalia was last reported alive. I assume it was grammatical & not you protecting the identity of John B. Poindexter.. 2607:FB90:766:FC0D:4B57:7D14:A27E:71FE (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the Talk page of the article, not here, so other editors can contribute, but I assure I'm not protecting Poindexter, as you put it. It was more than grammatical. Reading it gave me a headache. If other editors wish to change the material, I'm sure someone can craft something that readers can actually parse and understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk page consensus was to add John B. Poindexter. New proposal is to split into 2 sentences: "According to John B. Poindexter, Scalia died in his sleep from natural causes. He died on the night night of February 12 or the morning of February 13, 2016, following an afternoon of quail hunting and dining at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas". If these sentences also give you a headache, we could remove the nytimes article (marked as clarification needed), but I don't think that's necessary.. 2607:FB90:766:FC0D:4B57:7D14:A27E:71FE (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Cheers for you for the amount of SPI you have done. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez

Would you take care of Jose Rafael Cordero S. (possibly creation protecting it as well) and Draft:Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez, cf. nl:Wikipedia:Checklijst langdurig structureel vandalisme/Josercs1. The account Perlawhite will be globally locked, but a pro forma SPI was filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josercs1. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. Other admins seem to be aware of it. Salting all these permutations doesn't do much good. It's kinda like blocking dynamic IPs. As for the SPI, it predates my being a CheckUser, so I could block the puppet as suspected or even proven, but generally I request a global lock only if I've confirmed an account and the account has already edited more than one wiki, which this account hasn't. Nothing prevents you from requesting it, though. Maybe I'm being overly fussy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A checkuser question

I just had a small spate of vandalism on my user page, which I suspect might tie into a recent poster on my talk page. How would I request a check? (And a confirmed-users only semi, come to think of it. Is there a way to allow, but hold for approval, IP edits?) Anmccaff (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whom you suspect, but a CheckUser is not permitted to connect an IP to a named account. In any event, it was only one edit. If you want me to semi-protect your user page, let me know and for how long you want it protected. We don't normally apply PC changes to user pages or even user talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, so it only works for actual outright socks, new second covert user name? Makes sense, I suppose, especially for IPs that could be any number of people, and also lessens the chance of outing as well.
I suspect the guilty party has already effectively confessed, an edit or two back on this page, in a way that documents it well enough in case it goes further. No point in anything more there now. Is keeping anonymous edits off user pages that rare? I'd think anything needed for notifications and so forth could just as well go on the user_talk page.
(BTW, see my point about the blocks-as-a-bludgeon an edit or two back?)
Thanks, as always, for the information. Anmccaff (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a hard time following this guy's flow from his sentences. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

More possible sockpuppets

  • I have spotted a couple of more possible sockpockets – User:Tony3269 and User:Joeykai. Both have no profile, are redlisted and are editing in a style similar to vandalism and engaging in edit warring. In the former case see Shelbourne Ladies F.C. for example. In the later see Megan Campbell and other article on women's football in Ireland. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Redlisted ? There's a list out there I don't know about ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Djln means the two editors have no userpages and the "links" to their userpages are therefore red. Hardly compelling evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Djln: Careful with who & what you accuse. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not accusing anybody for certain, I used the word "possible". Just think they deserve looking into because of their behavior and standard of editing. My previous suspicions proved correct regarding Sevco et al and these two "editors" behavior is similarly suspect. If I am wrong, fair enough. Djln Djln (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
After previously calling me a "pedantic, anally retentive dickhead" you have now accused me of being a sockpuppet without ANY evidence. That is NOT "fair enough". This is basically harassment. Joeykai (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay folks, enough. If Djln wants to take this to SPI, that's their prerogative. If Joeykai wants to pursue a complaint about personal attacks, they can do that. But the discussion here is over. No more comments, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

24.32.196.170's block?

Last year, you blocked 24.32.196.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for evading a user block (Gullucum1956). In December, the IP began making the same problematic edits (changing Roman Catholic to Catholic in articles) that were the subject of the original block. Would you care to block the IP again? —  Rebbing  talk  02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Some people just never give up. Blocked for a year this time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and sorry for the delay but yesterday was super busy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman Catholic to Catholic. Am I the only person who thinks this may be related to this? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is another range block possible?

First of all, thank you for your intervention in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25. That being said, would a third range block in this case, against the 86.124.248.0/21 range be possible? There are twelve IP's in that range that are suspected socks. I can provide evidence if necessary, but most of them should be self explanatory. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for the revert on User:HankMoodyTZ talk page. Keeping the place vandal free as per‎ (Reverted edits by FkpCascais (talk) to last version by HankMoodyTZ - English). Cheerio! BiHVolim (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't revert because it was vandalism. I don't know whether it's vandalism. First, it's in Croatian, and the machine language translation ("how painful it defend a not a star you did not come back, and I gave you at the time an asterisk and give me that, not really nice, that you are khaki, all the best") isn't illuminating. Second, I don't know what the YouTube video means. I reverted for two reasons. First, Talk page discussions should be in English. Second, I'm not happy with the back-and-forth between you and the other user. Most of it is inappropriate bordering on disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It is OK. His post was meant to provoke me. It didn't though. Glad you reverted regardless, for whatever reason. He does tend to use foreign language a lot on peoples talk pages but whether that is allowed or not I could not comment. I am done debating the state of that image. I have instead worked on this article Nož, žica, Srebrenica and putting my time to good use rather than bickering on here. BiHVolim (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
See WP:SPEAKENGLISH.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

El-ßäbrega links with Harut111

Hi Bbb23, because you in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harut111/Archive said that El-ßäbrega possibly sock puppet of Harut111, and for that El-ßäbrega blocked. I have a question: Do you chacked El-ßäbrega link with Harut111? --Vadgt (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answer. --Vadgt (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Also block 1221nor user, which is sock puppet of El-ßäbrega.--Vadgt (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia

Hi, first thanks for blocking all these sock users, but I want to know if it's possible to redirect the page to the main sock account here ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kath Soucie's birthdate

Hello. It seems that the people at imdb have decided to change her birthdate and place from February 20, 1967, New York City, New York to November 18, 1953, Jacksonville, Florida, despite the fact that the source on her page indicates she is born in Cleveland Ohio. It looks like their source for the Florida is this one - http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/forums/showthread.php?p=84664! A forum comment! Apparently we aren't going to get to the bottom of this, because Kath is a very private person. She has seldom given interviews. I am convinced she was indeed born in the early 1950s and not the late 1960s, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source for this. What's your opinion on the status quo? Radiohist (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Radiohist: I think we should leave it alone. We don't have a reliable source for a birthdate. We have a reliable source for Cleveland as the birthplace. As you state, a blog post isn't a reliable source. So status quo is fine. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea! And you're welcome.Radiohist (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Need a reality check.

Hey B, I need a reality check, please.

Summary: IPs at List of Sofia the First episodes keep moving an episode from S2 to S3. One of the editors involved was a Bulgarian IP editor at 130.204.81.214 who finally participated in the discussion after two warnings. The user had a prior warning for edit-warring. Two discussions were held and consensus felt that the episode belonged in S2 based on sources. The IP presented no valid argument. Most recently, the editor again sneakily moved the episode against consensus.

I opened an ANI case here because it's clear to me that the user is being disruptive and because I'm tangentially involved, (having participated in the discussion). The case was closed, the closer feeling that it's a content dispute and unsuitable for ANI. The entirety of the IP user's argument has been:

Mimimus is Missing is officially a Season 3 episode, the second one of that season to be specific. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. It's so ridiculous. <snip>
No, there shouldn't be a discussion about it, because the episode has already aired and everywhere after its airing says that it's the second episode of Season 3. I bet your sources are outdated. Show them so that everyone can see them!

So, the reality check: How does this not qualify as edit-warring? He presents nothing in the way of an argument or references, consensus doesn't go his way, he keeps coming back and secretly changing the content back to his preferred version, editing against consensus. I've had this same thing happen hundreds of times over the years and it's always gone the same way. "Revert, discuss, establish consensus, report to ANI if the user keeps warring."

Was it reasonable for the ANI case to be closed? Please feel free to tell me that I'm nuts. I won't take it personally. :D Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not completely nuts, just partly. :-) Trying to enforce a consensus by yourself is a thankless task. Reporting it to ANI or even to AN3 rarely works because the edit warring is too sporadic and because you appear to be the only named account doing battle with the IP. In my view, you have two options. One is to try to get other editors involved again so you're not alone. Second is to let it go, or at least walk away from it for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Good advice is always welcome, as is a confirmation that I am party nuts. Much appreciated. I'll float it past WikiProject TV. The IP has restored the content again with the same "I don't like it" argument. Since I know that nobody's going to die if it's up there for a bit, I'll leave it. The user is clearly disruptive, though, and I would have blocked him myself if I weren't involved... Grumble grumble. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Potential problem with rangeblock?

I might be reading something wrong here, but I think the rangeblock you imposed on 2a02:2f05::/43 isn't working properly. 2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:567C:FA26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks to be in the blocked range, but was able to edit despite the block. Could you look this? Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP blocked by Ponyo is not part of the range I blocked. It would be included in 2a02:2f05::/42.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I extended the block to a /42 yesterday as noted here. The thread's already been archived though apparently due to the excessive and overbearing "clerking" of the AN/I board lately. But that's a discussion for another day. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive/vandal IP

Hey Bbb23, could you do something about this IP? There's some very annoying, structural, disruption/vandalism coming from it, and though he has been warned times, he's still continuing with it of today. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right that the IP should be blocked, but the edits aren't obvious vandalism unless you know enough about the subject area. I don't feel comfortable blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Aii, I see, that's too bad. Any ideas regarding what would be the best for us to do with such type of IP's? I mean, TW warnings don't scare them (as one can see on the talk page of this IP f.e.), and page protection is not much of a solution here as well I believe, as its a rather large/diverse amount of target articles that get subjected to disruption. Isn't there some admin-friendly approach for users that aids us both in dealing with such annoying stuff easily? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a common or predominant subject area? If so, try an administrator who is familiar with it so it can be evaluated properly. The only other thing I can think of, unfortunately, is ANI where it would be exposed to many administrators. However, sometimes things get lost at ANI even if they have merit. Either the right admin doesn't notice it or no one wants to be bothered with the analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, excuse me for my much belated response. I read it on the same day you posted though, just forgot to leave you a reply. Sorry for that. Yeah, I often usually just take the ANI route, but its kind of an annoying gamble as you indeed correctly tell. Combine that with, for example, the case in question being about something many people don't know of, or it just doesn't interest enough of the audience, and it becomes already quickly "WP:TLDR" (amongst others). I think the first point which you mentioned, namely contacting an admin who's familiar with the topic, would be probably still the best I guess. Thanks for your opinion, appreciate it, like always. I think its a good thing for users and admins to discuss such stuff, in order to relieve the occasional nonsensical "mindkill" events that strike both. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Socking connections

Hi,

Sorry if my ping on the Catcreekcitycouncil SPI didn't work for some reason (maybe because it was archived), but you might be interested in my comments here; I believe there is a link between this LTA and another troll by the name of Sheds thus guys argh g ugh b, which you dealt with a while ago. GABHello! 00:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Please don't edit the archives for any reason. I didn't read what you said, either, mainly because I'm too tired. If you want to repeat it, you can do so here or at Mike V's Talk page. As an aside, it was the way you pinged me that caused me not to be notified, not the fact that it was the archives (that's irrelevant).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I've already contacted Mike V. GABHello! 01:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Great.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Can IPs' actions be used to evidence connection between possible sock accounts at SPI?

Hello, dear checkuser. An IP from the range of an IP that is mentioned at the SPI of User:Sumatro's casepage's archive continues to operate, for which there is a strong evidence that it is was used by Stolichanin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and the IPs' contributions share a great similarity with other IPs and active users. I have analyzed the contributions of several IPs and thus I suspect that there may be an active(not stale) sockpuppet of User:Sumatro who edited Sofia article recently. If this can be a further evidence the case should be re-opened. What I have found are the following IPs contributions, confirming that they are Sumatro's socks by stylistic evidence(using specific grammar, personal attacks in Cyrillic Bulgarian instead of an argumentation - typical ad hominems that Sumatro uses, who agreed for the removal of the crime section insisted only by the confirmed sock-account Stolichanin and post trollings at Talk:Sofia[11][12], Sofia[13], and other talkpages), the IPs had came out of nowhere as ducks to edit-war on the side of User:Stolichanin until the article was semi-protected, they share also the urge to edit Sofia's collage and climate's section. Because of their edits, I believe, these IPs are indistinguishable from Sumatro and should be blocked:

So, I believe, that all these IPs that were used by Sumatro, evidently confirmed between each other and participating in the edit-war at Sofia article on the side of Stolichanin, but I also find out that they are connected to the contributions of another user. Despite being the IPs of Sumatro, all these IP ranges predominantly edit the following articles: Sofia, Economy of Bulgaria (editing the same statistics), average salaries and wages, motorways of Bulgaria - Trakiya motorway, Maritsa motorway etc., sports teams and players - so I think that anybody would suspect that the edits of the IPs above greatly resemble the contributions of this user account[16]. I am strongly convinced that the most likely explanation is that this active user account and the IPs are managed by the same person, if so the clear links between this user and Sumatro are the IPs from the range of 195.24.37.106 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - because the IP 195.24.37.106 is indeed linked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive.

85.118.69.105 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is recognisible by Sumatro's remarkable grammar style, acting as another person at a discussion for Suamtro's uploaded collage with the blocked socks 151.237.102.118 and Vargala (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) at Talk:Sofia. There is also plenty of other evidence. Actually, Zory5rova (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was not the right account to compare the suspected accounts. Please, analyze more carefully, if the check was rejected because of the age of an account, that would be pretty much like a believe in a tradition. The master is stale, please compare the suspected accounts to more recently used confirmed socks such as Vargala (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Stolichanin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

I found even more evidence at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Bulgaria - two more IPs from the same range interested in Bulgarian sports and one more account whose only purpose is a map uploaded by Mandramunjak (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a confirmed sock of Sumatro:

Although the case is closed, the information above may change your mind. Cheers. Serdik (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reading this. If you want to reopen the SPI, that's up to you. Just don't relist accounts that have already been addressed, particularly if they've been addressed recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Andruksen vandal is back

See Andruksen. A sock of, I believe, User:Ordinary Love. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's an oldie. Not only does it predate my CU days, I did it outside of an SPI, probably connected to CSD patrolling. Anyway, another suspected puppet blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

River Stumpf’s new user

River Stumpf created a user Special:Contributions/Thespinlight to involved its same editing (eg. Kurt Travis). 123.136.107.52 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thespinlight (talk · contribs · count) and Eldergeese (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks ... whoever you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

It looks to me that GuntherTP is yet another HarveyCarter sock. BMK (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're correct. Nice to see you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Same here, and thanks. BMK (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:Robert James-Collier

He changed his name from his name which was Robert Collier to Robert James-Collier because there already was a Robert Collier registered as an actor in Equity. He might go by Rob rather than Robert, but He changed his last name from Collier to James-Collier to comply with Equity rules. Hence I didn't change it from "Changed his name from Robert to Robert I only included the his full name, because he changed his name from Robert Collier to Robert James-Collier.NapoleonX (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. My apologies. I just self-reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that...

editors could remove block notices, while the block was in effect, I stand corrected. Also, thanks for dealing with the SPI so promptly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked editors can remove block notices due to a "clarification" of policy a good while ago (don't remember how long it's been). I was against it, but I was in a minority. However, a blocked editor is not permitted to remove declines of unblock requests. This is still a source of confusion for many editors, if nothing else on a commonsense level.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I take you up on that semi-

...on my user page? Someone appears to think I need to archive the talk page, and is suggesting I do so on another's page. Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: I assume you mean your Talk page not your userpage. I semi-protected it for one week as you don't say how long you want. Let me know if you want it shorter or longer. (I also blocked the recent IP vandal.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean the user talk page, although someone also seemed to think I needed a nude young woman on my user page, along with an explanation of "good faith.;" maybe I need a twofer? Nahh, this should do it for now.
Thanks. That was blindingly fast. Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

In case you're wondering, I found those no-edit accounts when patrolling the user creation log for offensive names for UAA. They made those accounts all in a row, so they were quite obvious to see. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I noticed your ping on the training page so I thought I'd let you know that it isn't because of lack of interest I haven't taken part in that yet, but because of health issues. A hopefully temporary thing that has resulted in me not having the energy needed to delve deep into things, so my editing here lately has mostly been gnoming on articles that I have edited on and off for several years now. But I'm still interested in the training, and clerking at SPI. /Tom Thomas.W talk 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Sorry to hear about your health issues. Of course, those things come before your work at Wikipedia. At the same time, wouldn't it be a good idea to let your fellow trainees know that for the present you won't be participating? You don't have to disclose any more than what you've said here. After all, this page, don't ask me why, is probably more "public" than the clerk training group page. Let me know if I can help in any way.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to do my part of the training work this weekend, but my mood swings a bit from day to day, depending on how well I feel. And today I seem to be particularly grumpy, so it's best if I don't do my part of the assignment this evening. Thomas.W talk 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but don't push yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent block of IKnowAlotOfStuff1204

IKnowAlotOfStuff120412 is an obvious sock. A derivative name created one hour after the Not Here block, and admits to being a sock of an unnamed account [17] and [18]. Meters (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

All done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IfYouLikeMolotovCocktails/Archive

It should have donned on me that other admins could use the diffs because they can see deleted edits, but I wasn't thinking about that last night (or early this morning, depending on what you consider 11:30PM-3:45 AM to be). It is a good point though, so I will make it a point to provide the diffs even if deleted from now on so that the admin corps can check up on it. Thanks for the sound advice :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I consider 11:30p-3:45a to be a time when I should be asleep but too often am not. :-( --Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny business with socks

Thoughts on this series of edits by Pilot Ninja?: Esther269 SPI archive redirect, Esther269 added to Hallerworld SPI archive, Esther269 tagged as a confirmed sock of Hallerworld, Esther269 notified of SPI, and Esther269 given a block notice for socking? — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Gosh, he does a lot of damage quickly, doesn't he? Blocked. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Support phone number spammer

Which is the SPI for the nutcase who posts articles consisting of long repetitions of customer support phone numbers? He's back again with Ustesting1001 (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Anhinhhhd (talk · contribs · count). Interestingly enough, although a behavioral comparison is an absolute match, the technical details don't match, so I blocked the account as suspected.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make a note of it for next time. Any idea what the point is? Does he get 5 cents for every time he posts the number, or something? JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Ha. He gets more money than I do for blocking him.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adilswati

Mike V did not return since March 3rd after putting it on-hold, i have provided more evidence since then and a couple of other editors provided evidence as well. If you have time, would you be able to expedite that request. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing by possible sock

Hello Bbb23, when you have some time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravikiran singh please? King Disher is still creating hoaxes and other nonsense, so it would be helpful to get that account blocked (they'll probably just create another though /sigh). It is an obvious duck case (imo), so should be easy to handle. Thank you for your continuing efforts at SPI. P.S.: I wonder if I should open a formal ANI-case about that user, but am not sure if it would make any difference? GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have blocked all three as ducks, and suggested that there is no point CU-ing for sleepers because each account was created only minutes before editing. I think it could be closed (till the next one). JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with inactive editors with bad attitudes

Hey Bbb23,

So, I came across a user's talk page where I found a fresh personal attack against them. If you look at this particular offender's talk page, you'll see that they're a fairly inactive editor, with only a handful of edits a year, but they have a bad history with making personal attacks against people whose edits they disagree with, including my own. I won't go into how suspect it is that they've magically appeared at several of my GA and FA nominations, despite being inactive and despite not previously editing the same pages as me, as other editors usually see through their vendettas and dismiss them. However, I have noticed that they continue to sporadically fling insults at other users to no consequence, as I presume other editors find their contributions infrequent enough that action isn't warranted.

As an experienced administrator whom I respect, what are your thoughts? Since they've been warned a number of times over the years, but they're also not terribly active, should action be taken against them? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 48 hours with some additional comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I was more wondering about whether or not they needed to be approached, if not brought to AN/I, but I suppose it makes sense to start with a 48-hour block, as there have been plenty of warnings over the years. Alright, good judgment. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

RedDeadJohn

Our pal RDJ is back as an IP hopper, vandalizing USA Network show articles again. Would you protect Burn Notice and White Collar (TV series), and let's nip this in the bud? Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll probably need to keep an eye on Covert Affairs and a couple others until he gets bored again. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
He won't stop. Time to semi Covert Affairs, Psych (TV series) and Monk (TV series) along with their corresponding episode articles. He's gone nuts. There's got to be enough vandalism to justify some sort of range block. --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
First, if you wish me to look at articles, at least wikilink the particular articles. Second, if you want me to review the possibility of a range block, I prefer you reopen the SPI. I'm not keen on doing it on the fly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I've got the flu, and I'm tired of cleaning up after this guy. I'll do an SPI when I feel better, if I'm so inclined. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth are you editing when you have the flu? Neither Wikipedia nor eliminating sock puppetry warrants jeopardizing your health. When you're better, if you don't mind, it would be nice if you could reopen the SPI and list the various IPs he's used. You don't have to do much of anything with evidence, and you can alert me to the reopening in case a stickler clerk complains that you have to provide diffs, and I promise I'll look at it then. If a range block is feasible, it would hopefully eliminate the need to semi-protect so many articles, so in many ways it's a better first approach. If it's not feasible, then we'll just have to semi them as they come along. Go to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm in bed, editing on my iPad. I'm at that "sick of being sick" stage. Sounds like a plan for SPI. This had to stop. --Drmargi (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, somehow I knew you were going to say that. So the next order from papa Bbb23 is turn off the iPad. If you're sick of being sick, do something less challenging like read some popular fiction or something. I swear. Sometimes I think that people with PhDs are the most neurotic. Isn't that true, Drmies?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand Drmargi is from California, where neurosis is in the tap water. Get well soon, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That's why I don't drink the tap water. It's actually a fluoridation conspiracy to poison our brains and allow the CIA to control us through special microbial implants. But I've fooled 'em.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
No, you cannot fool us, we are on you, as a matter of fact, we are always stalking your talk pages ;) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That's in the Bay Area. I live down south, where we're much more mellow. --Drmargi (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, B, the links are in above if you're inclined to protect those pages. --Drmargi (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You think southern California is more mellow than northern? You are sick. Where I live in southern California no one is mellow unless they're on drugs and then it has to be right kind.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All depends on what county you live in...  ;-). --Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Returning to the issue at hand, would you also protect List of programs broadcast by USA Network. He's been hitting that one hard. --Drmargi (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Zimm2/Hypocritepedia

Excuse me, but how is blocking an obvious sock 'a waste of our time'? The user has been blocked for vandalism and attacks on right-wing articles going back nearly a decade, it's an open/shut case. I'm told to report them ASAP but then they get dismissed to continue damaging the encyclopedia because of WP:BURO that's made dealing with a user that has attempted to break into my personal social media accounts in the past difficult? Read the evidence of Hypocritepedia, please. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the error now; not on you at all. Van could've talk-paged me though (I meant Zimm2, not a circuitous nom). I will re-nom correctly now. Nate • (chatter) 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected Nsmutte sock

Any chance this may be related? The behavior is different and I can't see the deleted article, but the name was the same, and I thought I might as well bring it to your attention. Thanks, GABHello! 01:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Every chance in the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Plasticine and sockpuppets

Following on from my recent SPI case that came out of the edit war at plasticine (The case was Hengistmate) and the misunderstanding that resulted, there has been some 'drive by' editing at the article by apparently unrelated editors that appear to be carrying on the edit war. The first claimed WP:ENGVAR which has been proven at the talk page to not be the issue, so without further evidence, I can accept may be good faith.

The second, however, is much more suspicious. The account is less than one day old (created 20:02 yesterday - the edit at plasticine being made 17 minutes later). Nearly all of the early edits were to fuze related articles. Following my previous experience, I am reluctant to make a direct accusation of sockpuppetry, but this edit suggest that the account user is nowhere near as new as it appears (which usually means a blocked user or someone avoiding scrutiny). I would welcome your opinion. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Given the complexity and confusion created by the case(s), if you think there is evidence of socking by a particular account (an established account like the first one you mention or a new account like the second), first you have to determine who you think the master is, then you have to reopen the SPI if a case already exists, or open a new case. At that point, just as with all filers, you'd have to present your evidence connecting the account(s) to the master.
In all candor, there are times when I'm willing to investigate outside of an SPI, but it depends on the circumstances, and in this particlar instance, I don't think it would be prudent for me to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. As you hinted, the problem is that while there is good suspicion that the new account is a sock of someone, the problem is: a sock of whom? There are not enough edits to establish a pattern with either of the two principal antagonists or the first edit linked above. All I can do is see how this plays out, if it plays out at all. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A checkuser question, redux

Remember this?

I just had a small spate of vandalism on my user page, which I suspect might tie into a recent poster on my talk page. How would I request a check? (And a confirmed-users only semi, come to think of it. Is there a way to allow, but hold for approval, IP edits?) Anmccaff (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 

   I don't know whom you suspect, but a CheckUser is not permitted to connect an IP to a named account. In any event, it was only one edit. If you want me to semi-protect your user page, let me know and for how long you want it protected. We don't normally apply PC changes to user pages or even user talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

       Ahh, so it only works for actual outright socks, new second covert user name? Makes sense, I suppose, especially for IPs that could be any number of people, and also lessens the chance of outing as well.

       I suspect the guilty party has already effectively confessed, an edit or two back on this page, in a way that documents it well enough in case it goes further. No point in anything more there now. Is keeping anonymous edits off user pages that rare? I'd think anything needed for notifications and so forth could just as well go on the user_talk page.

       (BTW, see my point about the blocks-as-a-bludgeon an edit or two back?)

       Thanks, as always, for the information. Anmccaff (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

           I have a hard time following this guy's flow from his sentences. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing is back at it[[19]], also adding its subtle plea for companionship [[20]]. It's an IP only slightly different from the previous, 2601:84:4601:D750:D858:261:8B96:79BC; should I just let Comcast deal with it, or what? Anmccaff (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comcast won't deal with it. The IP did a short run of vandalism on your and other pages on March 9. Looks like they stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

The users on Sambhawana might be socking because two accounts keep deleting speedy templates.2602:306:3357:BA0:1DFB:946C:4450:D3F3 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Moves and AwardPunjabi

My apologies for opening under the wrong master (I've done that twice now!). My (bad) habit is to assume that the article creator is the master. Sorry about that, and I'll be more careful in the future about checking before filing. GABHello! 23:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition: might there be a connection between the Rahul0500 (talk · contribs) SPI and the AwardPunjabi SPI? It seems rather similar to me... Sukhdeep Sukh, which AP created, also has the same "modest Punjabi family," and other articles created by their socks -- Amandeep Singh (Suniara) and Nav Bajwa -- are also really promotional and similar in tone. Should I request CU at the AP SPI? Thanks, GABHello! 16:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I kind of backed into this, but AwardPunjabi and Rahul0500 are Red X Unrelated. I haven't looked at the two others and probably won't have time to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty surprising, actually. GABHello! 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Workshop

I plan to do a outreach workshop to introduce Wikipedia to journalism students, during which 10 participants who will registered users (I've asked them to create accounts before the workshop) are likely to edit from that IP address which is a dynamic one, I have done similar workshops at other places, and am aware that permission can be sought so that the said address may not be blocked, for the duration of the workshop, however this part was done by someone else, I wonder how to go about it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how to go about this sort of thing. I've tried to figure out what the proper way is to organize group education, but I got nowhere (except a brief spat with an unfriendly trainer). From a CheckUser perspective, though, the most important thing a new account participating in your outreach can do is to declare on their userpage what they're doing, and for you to say on your userpage what your role is, who is participating, and the dates of the workshop. That way, if someone sees a bunch of new users suddenly editing in a similar fashion and perhaps not looking very competent, they won't suspect sock puppetry. Perhaps one of my talk page stalkers has more guideline/policy information on this, but it's pretty much opaque to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Yogesh Khandke: you may find some helpful advice here. This is where I direct inquiries from educators when they request IP unblocking at UTRS.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping/avoiding scrutiny/socking

Hey Bbb23,

There's this user (Yossimgim) whom I believe is currently using IP's to avoid scrutiny, and therefore I thought this matter might interest you. The IP's in question for now are;

These remarkable trademark edits as made by these IPs are fully in line with the edits of Yossimgim, who has been blocked numerous times and was hanging on a thin rope, until he stopped editing very recently on 5 March 2016, and the IP's started editing just some days later. Main interests of all of them; religion charts, adding unrelated templates to articles.

Here are some examples that prove my point;

The IP's making the same edits;[21]-[22]-[23]-[24]-[25]-[26]-[27] (etc.)

Yossimgim making the same edits;[28]-[29]-[30]-[[31]-[32]-[33] (etc.)

There are many other behavioural matches such as the fact that Yossimgim has been blocked several times for edit-warring as well as making personal attacks,[34]-[35] which is, editorially, in line with the relatively small edit count the IP's have."You ruined the infobox you moron"-"Sundayclose su:)ck my balls".

This info might save the Checkusers some time. As well as those who patrol these articles of course, heh. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an SPI on this user. I suggest you deal with this there. I rarely have much to do with the analysis of IP behavior directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to post a note of appreciation for the rather tedious mopping-up job you are doing over at SPI, and for doing it quickly and efficiently. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's hard on all of us, especially you. Probably not the way you want to see your username plastered all over. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SocraticOath site-wide edit warring and possible harassment

Hi, I noticed you were an admin working on the Admin edit board warring page and I was wondering how to proceed, as a user - User:SocraticOath - who was reported by another user for edit warring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SocraticOath_reported_by_User:Winkelvi_.28Result:_.29 - on an article I edited (reverting my edits), is now going through my entire edit history and reverting edits I made to articles months ago, and said on the noticeboard that they are "I was trying to find more out about you [User:VoltaireEditor]". This is such strange behavior I really don't know how to proceed. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

TBAN

I hope that you don't make it a habit of running around telling other editors they aren't allowed to do things which they are more than certainly allowed to do. Mind you, I do feel for you as I have helped maintain WP:EP for over a decade now, but we're always at least somewhat welcome to new ideas over there. I suspect that if you stopped and breathed a little you'd find my edit an improvement :) -- Kendrick7talk 04:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7:, I did not think it improved the policy, because topic bans are supposed to be bans about certain topics, project-wide. Unless stipulated otherwise. One can be banned from an article, but encouraged to post on the Talk page, but that is not a topic ban. In any case, I am off to bed. The place to discuss this is probably on the policy Talk page, as I have seen other discussions there that have not achieved consensus. Which probably means we shouldn't change policy before there is. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kendrick7:, you aren't allowed to change policy unilaterally. Policy is determined by consensus, and unless you can demonstrate that consensus then you can't change policy. You can try, but you may get reverted. You can revert right back but you will probably get reverted again. I suggest you start by creating a discussion on the talk page to check if people agree with your changes. HighInBC 17:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You can try, but you may get reverted. Well of course, I know that @HighInBC:; I just thought the language used in the reversion[36] was rather impolitic (maybe late last night I took it too personally and was being a tad grumpy about it, but still). Policy pages are subject to the WP:BRD cycle, and the "R" part should, ideally, give reasoned explanation for the reversion, thus creating something for the "D" part to discuss. Unilaterally telling an editor that they are not allowed to do the "B" part isn't appropriate. (FWIW I really don't think my edit was all that far-ranging.)
@Dave Dial: Well, there is no consensus, given the current language of the policy, that topic bans should be project wide. In point of fact, that would prevent an editor from even appealing their topic ban, in that mentioning the topic would be a violation. Which is absurd! But your theory does seem to be widespread among the administration, which is why I was trying to clarify things in the first place. I'll re-propose my diff on the policy's talk page soon. -- Kendrick7talk 01:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news

Enjoy your break! I hope you get to breathe some cool, clean air. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind...

I know you must be busy, but would you mind taking a look at this sock. It's becoming quite problematic and is leaking into the 3RR noticeboard, and I want to try and nip this in the bud. livelikemusic talk! 05:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for everything you did this morning! Was a bit concerned with how out of control things were getting! livelikemusic talk! 13:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help. Some socks are more personally annoying than others. It can be frustrating.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You can say that again; given their edit history, it is clear they do not like me because I report them for socking. And I have a sneaking suspicion by the end of today there will be another account or three. livelikemusic talk! 13:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Ding ding ding. You were right livelikemusic. Here Soccerballs423 (talk · contribs) is the first one. MarnetteD|Talk 14:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Desperate and sad. That's all I've got to say. Can a CBAN or something be implemented? Or else we'll be sock-blocking every single day at this rate. livelikemusic talk! 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling Katty368 (talk · contribs) is another sock; mirrors one of their socks Katycat and follows the same number pattern. livelikemusic talk! 14:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Katty368 is older than the master, although the account has very few edits based on the account creation date. It's harder for me to justify a CU on the fly with such an account. Some evidence in the way of diffs would be needed, and it would probably be best to reopen the SPI to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It's probably more the case of coincidence. But, given the user's mass-sock history, one can only guess. Glad that the new account (Soccerballs) was caught in due-time before anything major happened. livelikemusic talk! 15:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
They are IP hopping now; is there something we can do about this? livelikemusic talk! 17:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that tedious message from my talk page; I appreciate it! livelikemusic talk! 13:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

They're back, and issuing insane personal attacks right now. livelikemusic talk! 22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Bbb23 is away for a week or two. I've handled the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Again, Ponyo, you are excellent! livelikemusic talk! 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry?

Hi. I think Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has possibly come back as the IPs 2601:983:8001:bc50:5580:8f86:e03a:90ba (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2601:983:8001:bc50:18f:fb84:43ff:7755 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both of these IPs geolocate to Harrisburg, PA and have the same interest in editing album articles. Can you please look into this? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sjones23 There is a note at the top of the page that Bbb23 will be off WikiP for a week or two. If you need quick action you might file an SPI or report this to someone else that you know. Bbb23 I hope that you have an enjoyable wikibreak. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I've contacted Lapadite77 (talk · contribs) for his thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sjones23: Blocks have been issued, including Itrytocleanup (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 and DoRD, might want to check Halestormeditor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now. That's just comical. Lapadite (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You also might want to check 74.99.146.113 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Same city and interests as Noneof yourbusiness48. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Point of personal privilege

This has been reported at UAA, but that area is backlogged several days and I would like to request it be dealt with promptly. A new user has surfaced named User:MelanieN CLOWN, an obvious sockpuppet of David Adam Kess. They are making the same edits to Art Forgery,[37] and Wolfgang Beltracchi [38] as a previous sock that I encountered there. I would like to request that this username be promptly suppressed. Thanks in advance! From the real --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Said user has been blocked, and their user page has been deleted under CSD G10.
@MelanieN: Do you want it suppressed, or do you just want it blocked? I didn't add it to the sockpuppet category to minimize the spread of the name. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Blocked is fine. Thank you, User:C.Fred! --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I have to say, User:Bbb23 - you have the BEST page stalkers! --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ameris Bancorp

At some point this page was deleted. I'm requesting a reversal or at least the assurance that if a page is created it will not be deleted on the same grounds (A7) as it was previously. My argument is that the subject matter is of significance because the bank is publicly traded corporation which just closed on the purchase of another banking corporation which already has a wikipedia article, Jacksonville Bancorp. The company also recently added its signage to the Riverplace Tower in Jacksonville. Mathew Stilwell (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User Johnsmith2116

You blocked him[39] a long time ago over this[40]. He's making personal attacks again not dissimilar to the first time in this edit[41] at the very end of which he threatens to be disruptive. To quote- "And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability." He is also edit warring at 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play where both I and another editor told him something was both unreferenced and speculative. Could you please address this editor over all of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I brought this to the attention of administrator MilborneOne who is handling it now. When I wrote my above post I hadn't seen the post about you being away. Sorry to have bothered you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

One of your regulars?

Hi B, is this one of your regulars? Maybe a plot tagging vandal or something? He just got off a 3 month block and reverted me. Since I didn't use an edit summary in my reversion, I'm assuming I just hit the "rollback all" on him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Not the usual "regular". They kept acting like an admin with respect to user and user talk pages. They also kept promising to stop but then didn't. I suspect they're otherwise disruptive as well but not to the point of vandalism. You'll have to evaluate their edits on your own. The one time they reverted you looks like they have some trouble writing coherent English.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI request

Okay. I understand why I shouldn't delete others' comments, and I'm very sorry for the error. I didn't intend to silence anybody, just to get the case looked at somehow. I'm not an experienced user, but those that are (Jytdog, Geogene, Brianhe, Vanamonde, Champaign Supernova, Justnumbersandletterss, etc.) all agree that the evidence points strongly to a group of sock puppets here. How do we get an administrator to take a look? I appreciate your being willing to comment even if you're not interested in the case yourself. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mdhashim24

Sorry about that, I thought I had the main SPI page open. Would appreciate you tagging User:Lhlafond and User:Johnettalafond when you've got a moment, to clarify whether the block was directly related to Mdhashim24. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The two accounts are not related to Mdhashim24. I'm leaving them untagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Problematic IP / problematic sock discussion could use your input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_Concerns. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Glad to see you back here and I hope things are OK IRL. Mike V • Talk 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Hope things have calmed down somewhat, wishing you good luck. GABHello! 17:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks folks. Nothing bad in my RL, just a major change.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Glad you are finally back! It has been a long month of wait. It is only now that I think when you were always available I took it for granted. The wait has taught me what it is like to miss an invaluable admin. Cheers and welcome back! Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your checkuser block of User:Finnoflannigan

Don't know who the master is, but this vandalism-only account claims to be Finnoflannigan. See User:Iamapieceofcheese Meters (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

An accurate claim. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

revdel request on Special:Diff/716266389

Hi Bbb23, would you be able to revdel the ip on Special:Diff/716266389? Made a mistake of editing while logged out. I'll try not to let that happen again. I believe this qualifies under oversightable information - privacy related. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

would also include Special:Diff/716266524's edit summary. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't suppress it, but I did delete it. If you want it suppressed, you'll have to talk to an OS or write the OS team.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Happened to see this and also suppressed it. -- GB fan 20:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

JP SPI

Bbb23, wanted to let you know that if the response I gave to you here sounded too "snippy", my apologies. That wasn't my intent. I was a bit miffed that you chastised me for asking what I did (explanation as to why I asked more than once is in the link above), but I didn't intent for my comments to be or sound rude, just letting you know why I was being repetitive. Thanks for always helping with the Jp socks as you are able. And welcome back. Hope all is well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Winkelvi, just as you didn't intend to be snippy, my not responding to your previous statements wasn't because I was ignoring you. Too complicated to explain the machinations of my small brain, so we'll both agree not to be miffed and all will be well.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree! And my apologies for thinking you were ignoring me. I have to admit, though, it does happen a lot between admins and non-admins. I made the wrong assumption this time was the same. Considering your brain assessment, do any of the B's in your account name stand for 'Brachyasaurus'? (they had very small brains) ;) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
All three b's stand for it. I figure three small brains adds up to one medium-sized brain. You know, 2+2=5 and all that arithmetic I learned before I dropped out of elementary school and became an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I always assumed that your username stood for "Bodacious beatboxer" plus your age (23). Please don't tell me it's not true...don't kill the dream.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bodacious, beatboxing dinosaur, the only one to survive extinction.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Whereas demi-lysdexics such as myself were convinced it had to do with battleships and 5.56mm ammo. Welcome back. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

I have a concern about a user, EllenMcGill, who started the account less than a month ago. I was following the sockpuppet investigation for Lesbianadvocate. I didn't participate in the discussion, but I was really interested in it because I've seen one of the suspected sockpuppets in articles I've been to. Anyway, what stood out at me was all the passionate comments by Ellen, who keeps claiming she's new. After reading everything she said, and looking at her editing history, I would be shocked if she's not a sockpuppet herself. I have no idea who she is (I assume it's a she) and I've never had any communication with her whatsoever, but it just seems completely obvious that she's a very experienced editor even though she regularly tells people she's new and doesn't know much, and asks how to do things. A lot of her edits, and things she says, just struck me as very fishy. Like how can she be new, yet make edits, write edit summaries, and use a bunch of Wikipedia lingo (such as "prima facie POV-pushing") that clearly appear to be from someone experienced? And something odd that stands out is that I see she gets heavily involved in various noticeboard discussions, where she posts very lengthy, knowledgeable, detailed comments, like this one. And there's no way a new user would ever even think, or know, about making edits like this one and this one. Anyway, I looked at her very first edits to see if maybe that would give a hint about her purpose, and I see she made, and continues to make, lots of edits to American Council for Capital Formation. I would bet all the money I have that Ellen either works for that organization or someone paid her to edit it. I went back to the sockpuppet noticeboard to consider reporting her, but the process is just too complicated so I decided not to proceed. Instead, I saw your name as the administrator who made the decision in the Lesbianadvocate case, so I thought I would just let you know my thoughts. Dirroli (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Egaplaicesp is a sock of Tirgil34; can anything be done?

Egaplaicesp is clearly not an independent sockmaster, but rather himself a sock of Tirgil34. The similarities are just too large for Egaplaicesp to be a simple meatsock/fanboy:

Earlier attempts to raise this issue at both Egaplaicesp's SPI and Tirgil34's SPI have not been met properly, while attempts to communicate with administrators have been met with unfollowed up replies or dismissed as a waste of time. Having two SPI's for the same sockmaster obviously makes detecting socks more difficult. Does it require an admin to merge Egaplaicesp as a Tirgil34 sock or can i do it myself? Krakkos (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not an administrator and you are not a clerk. You can't take any action at SPI other than filing and requesting a CU. Don't even think about merging cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I've created yet another two cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. One concerns Egaplaicesps connection to Tirgil34 and the other concerns a newly discovered sock that can be compared to both recently blocked Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp socks. That case has to be checked quickly because it will soon be 3 months since the accounts were blocked. Krakkos (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake

on yet another SP report for Dung247, and furthermore for doing what I meant to ask for instead of what I did ask for!

That should teach me to not do Things That Should Be Gotten Right when I've already decided it's time for bed. It probably won't, but it should. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The abominable Wiki troll

This LTA abuser has just been blocked (again) - this time as User:B. Mastino. As this LTA vandal has been using multiple socks - many simultaneously - over the last seven years, how do I go about requesting a sleeper check? Mastino was blocked as a duck, with no SPI entry. Thanks in advance for instruction! Scr★pIronIV 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You could reopen the case with B. Mastino as a blocked account and request a sleeper check. However, I'd recommend against it unless you have evidence that the master has been creating a lot of accounts each time they are reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly MariaJaydHicky's sock

Special:Contributions/3WLfan, User:Annvarie and User:I loves Meghan Trainor are possibly MariaJaydHicky's socks. Block on sight material. 123.136.112.42 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have striked the IPs comment as for the pure and simple fact they are MariaJaydHicky's socks trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, I loves Meghan Trainor (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted my page even though It fell under the right stuff

Hi. You deleted my page but the person said if I had accomplishments then it wouldn't get deleted. So I told him that we have had a lot of accomplishments and explained what there are on my talk page.If you want more info then ask me for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan398 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Name change?

Hi. Now my ban has expired I was wondering if it would be possible for me to change my username. Made this account when I was quite young and feel now would be an appropriate time to make my name change and get a fresh start. Please let me know if this is possible. DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Look here for name changes: WP:RENAME. Look here for fresh starts (different from a simple name change): WP:FRESHSTART.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Robo Sagar

why u delete the page robo sagar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrobotnepal (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pasir Puteh Sentral

Do you really think this stub gives enough information to identify the subject? OK, we can see that it's a building of some sort, in Malaysia, but is it a temple, office block, station, art work? I'd have thought it was A1. Ah well, I'll try PRODding it. PamD 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@PamD: I've deleted it. I misread it. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Any movement on that Ameris Bank Request

Ummmm, just checking in on my request which you had time to archive but not respond to. If it is at all possible for you to review an action you took a few months back, it would be appreciated. A page by the name Ameris Bank or Ameris Bancorp was deleted, but potentially meets the requirement of notability. The initial deletion could be argued, in my opinion, but it is developments in regards to the deleted topic since deletion that warrant its review. One of these developments being the acquisition of an entity with a said notability, Jacksonville Bancorp. The entity also has its name on a notable building, Riverplace Tower. I desire to resurrect the page on the premise that the entity is noteworthy. This is my last attempt to reach out to the deleter before I unilaterally resurrect the page. Mathew Stilwell (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't archive my Talk page; it's done by a bot. Second, if you'd bothered to read the message at the top of my Talk page when you left your first message, you would have seen I was off-wiki for an extended period of time. Go ahead and "unilaterally resurrect the page"; it'll save me the trouble of looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

June Pedersen

Hello, you recently deleted June Pedersen. Can you please add it to the draft space or userfy so it can be worked on? Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: As you may have noticed, I deleted it per WP:CSD#G5. If you believe the article is an appropriate article for Wikipedia as created (and slightly modified by you), I will just restore it. If you prefer to work on it in non-article space, I'll userfy it. Let me know which you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to review again. Please userfy. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:June Pedersen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Philip Schuyler Church Article

I had noticed that the Wikipedia page for Phillip Schuyler Church was deleted. I am inquiring as to why this was done and what may be done to help restore it to proper function. It would be ashamed if a historical figure of such importance were to be erased from the site. User: Yelekam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.114.54 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to log in if you wish to challenge the deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I was logged in at the time of this post. If you are referring to the signature, I believe I now have that on. But to the point, I am petitioning to seek to have the page reestablished for Phillip Schuyler Church. Yelekam (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
How did you notice the page was deleted? What makes you think the subject is notable? Certainly based on the article as crafted by another user (whose only other edit at Wikipedia was vandalism), it wasn't notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a historian. I had recalled the page had existed before and when I checked on it a few days ago I had found out that it was deleted. It may well have been that the page as it had existed wasn't well made, I am unable to see or recall its exact content. Though from my own historical knowledge the figure of Phillip Schuyler Church was a notable historical figure. He was a significant figure in the formation of Western New York, nephew of Alexander of Hamilton and grandson of General Phillip Schuyler, founder of Angelica, developer of multiple settlements, key figure in the creation of Allegany County, New York, first judge of Allegany County, was involved in the establishment of the Erie and Genesee Canal systems, as well as various other development projects. If the page were to be reestablished I could use my knowledge and access to informational sources to help make an adequate page.Yelekam (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what the article said in total:

Philip Schuyler church was born on April 14,1778 Boston, Suffolk Massachusetts and died on January 7,1861 in Angelica,allegany New York. Frist born son of Angelica church Schuyler and John backer church and married anna Mathilda Stewart daughter of general Walter Stewart ( Founder of the Erie Canal)

I can put that in draft space for you (I would never restore it to article space), but my guess is it would be easier to start from scratch. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Gayle Chapman

Hi Bbb23, I see you deleted the entry on Gayle Chapman a few days ago. Gayle Chapman was a member of Prince's band The Revolution, fulfilling Wiki's "Is or was part of a notable band" and "Is or was associated with a notable musician" criteria for significance in a musician. Can you tell me the reasons for the deletion? Thanks. Faff296 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get those quotes from?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes I see now this isn't an official Wiki guideline page, but I'd still call them "credible claims of significance".Faff296 (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick advice requested.

I should like your advice on a small matter. I have another editor who is repeatedly removing a {{failed verification}} tag from a reference being used to support two claims in an article. The reference provided does not support either claim, in that it completely does not mention one claim and the other has been obviously synthesised from something completely different that it does say. The question: is this disruptive editing or vandalism? My reading of the policies suggests the latter, but I should appreciate guidance. Thanks in advance. --Elektrik Fanne 12:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. I wouldn't focus on whether it's disruptive but on the dispute between the two of you. First, I'd discuss it on the article Talk page rather than on your Talk page. Second, I'd look into dispute resolution if you can't resolve the language in the lead. I wouldn't edit-war over it and reverting wouldn't be justified under WP:3RRNO. The article, Conner Peripherals, is generally poorly sourced, so I tagged it as needing more sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. --Elektrik Fanne 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Gordon-Levitt&diff=717986807&oldid=717982508. --violetnese 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Christian blogosphere

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SmilingFace (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nova Science Publishers

We have another cluster of WikipediaNOVA socks... Thanks, GABHello! 13:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Gone. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Find a grave

I nominated the template for deletion...... we'll see what happens. WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 3 Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wit Ronni

Wit Ronni was blocked a while ago for disruptive editing, namely removing sources. However there have been a number of IPs that have carried out edits very similar to Wit Ronni's. this edit for example is a very recent one, strikingly similar to many of Wit Ronni's this being an example. The IPs only edit for a day or so before another IP starts doing similar edits, so I am unsure what to do. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also take a look at this IP's contirbutions. Most of them are disruptive and they follow the same format. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this. Why not talk to GiantSnowman, the blocking administrator?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: - if you see anymore please let me know. These two have been reverted, blocked, and tagged. GiantSnowman 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd

Bbb23, I just filed a COIN report on this and the deeper I look into it the more I think that the master on the SPI is linked to the rest of the puppets, just maybe boss-employee relationship and not the same person. That also brings another mess in that I've found a few other possible accounts. If your sweep didn't catch them I'm guessing they are another group under this boss, there also seems to be a link to the Alexa thingy, most clients are small businesses in India but they do have a few clients in Europe too. I think, Brianhe, once he sees the COIN post might be able to wave his magic wand to find out how they got these clients. This is one of the most absurd SPIs I've ever filed! —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • How many others fit into the most absurd category? --Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Now that I've stepped away from adminning the India film/TV areas, there are very few! —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Has anyone been masochistic enough to take your place?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • The omnipresent and omnipotent one seems to be handling it all. —SpacemanSpiff 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
          • She files SPIs? Or she just blocks 'em without the niceties of an SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
            • No unnecessary paperwork now. I start looking at an article in the CSD queue and by the time I check the talk page and history, *poof*, the article deletion criteria can change from A7/G11 to G5.—SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. Clearly Infoways has Ability Unlimited and Syed Sallauddin Pasha as a client per this item in their portfolio. They claim to be a "top 10 SEO company" in the UK [68]. How they attract business in the UK is unclear but I suspect they use Facebook as a tool based on ubiquitous "like" buttons on their site. Note that the firm specifically lists Wikipedia services [69] including "Wikipedia page with guaranteed approval" and "Wikipedia monitoring". - Brianhe (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they have U.S. clients as well [70] "SciRex Publisher is the open access publisher of high impact multi-disciplinary research article [sic]." - Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Sigh, this is more than I bargained for, I wasn't able to identify the client list initially. Will note this and any further findings on the COIN discussion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Request to Indefinitely Block and/or Topic Ban

User:Swamiblue was reported to ANI for their consistent history of disruptive editing[71]. Unfortunately, the topic ban could not be given because the user did not receive any discretionary sanctions. User:Bishonen handed out the warnings [72] so that sanctions can be given down the road. As soon as the recent block was lifted, the user again got on to the same behavior - re-inserting BLP content [73], removing large chunks of sourced content [74], making personal attacks [75] despite multiple prior warnings [76], edit warring ([77] and [78]), reviving topics that have found consensus[79], and disrupting topics with conspiracy theories and conjecture demonstrating a clear bias. The user was also warned that if such behavior was repeated they were at a risk of getting an indefinite block[80]. User has ignored all of this. I think the time has come to hand an indefinite block and/or topic ban to the user. I would appreciate some help in maintaining Wikipedia’s high standards for a topic that seems to have a contentious affect on User:Swamiblue. Thanks for going through the diffs. Kapil.xerox (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where do I even start? I am going to address each point that user:kapil.xerox is making because he seems to have contorted the facts to make it out as if I am doing something wrong. I am going to address points 3-10 because points 1, 2 are showing past history pages which all parties involved are aware of.

3. The user points out that I am re-inserting WP:BLP content. This is an outright lie. I have proof from an administrators talk page: User: Dr.K.. User:kapil.xerox was told by an administrator here [81] to stop deleting talk pages discussion and was given a warning by the same admin to stop edit warring [82]. The admin specifically tells him “I don't see these as BLP violations and if you think that some of them are off- topic, you should strike or remove them, but you should not remove the other replies in a wholesale fashion as you did, including the replies by good-faith editors.” The admin reverted his edits here as well: [83].

4. I repeatedly told the user that I believed the article was too long and since the BAPS charities section already had an article where all the information is repeated and a link to the article is included in the section, why must we have all the sub topics be included? I waited for other users to give their input. The other users with fresh eyes disagreed with me and so I stated on April 29th that consensus was reached and reverted my edit. All I asked for was an outside perspective. The outside two users explained their points and they did not have a contentious editing history with this topic. [84]

5. I am not sure when or how stating facts and observations became making personal attacks. My edits are stalked by the same group of users and they have no issue harassing me with that. They only seem to be concerned with these pages and not any other edits. Also I placed help tag and requested some of these users for help on making the Gopalanand Swami article but not one of these users have even addressed that. Though when it comes to Pramukh’s Sexual abuse allegations or the BAPS talk page, it is jumped on and accusations of edit warring, violations and monitoring my edits fly by like no tomorrow. So I pointed out that anytime there is a critical point, they seem to attack that immediately and I feel there is a conflict of interest. Why can’t they admit they have a relationship with this group?

6. To ease the tension, based on my multiple prior warnings, I removed some unnecessary talk page dialogue that didn’t add anything and were almost three years old. [85]. I took initiative to clean up the talk page for things that I was fully given a clean slate for but this user is obsessed with contentious editing regarding this particular guru, and ironically the article does not even have the sexual abuse allegations. Rather when the news broke on global media regarding the accusations, I brought the discussion to the talk page on the talk page and showed primary sources that even the group BAPS responded and denied the allegations on their website. http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx The user was warned by Dr. K to remove the comments of others. [86]

7, 8. I asked two other admins for assistance and they told me to go to the talk page. User: kapil.xerox has edit warring notices on his talk pages and has been blocked in the past as well.

9. Please see point 4 and my talk page post here about examples of the same group of users obsessing over any critical discussion regarding BAPS and related topics. [87]. This user has literally littered my talk pages with harassing notices and warnings [88] when people are starting to notice the agenda that he has to portray this group and only related topics in a certain type of way. There is no balance in the tone of the article and it seems like the motivation for their editing is agenda driven. I do deep dive research to find sources and all these people can do is gang up and delete.

10. Of all my edits, I wanted to make sure that I am doing the right things and get assistance. I ask user:Jpgordon and User:Anthony Bradbury for clarification for the edits this user is obsessed with getting me off on. I have evolved as an editor, found multiple citations for my edits and resolving disputes by having outside help but this person is fanatical with making sure these articles and talk pages are only presented the way he wants. I have even reached out to the user even after I witnessed their biases and COI’s [89] but no response. Please review this thoroughly and I hope that this is not a lazy attempt by user:kapil.xerox to revert all my edits so that can change things to the way they want. This editor has shown this reaction in their editing history in the past and admins have told him to stop.

Side note: I do find it strange that this user keeps resorting to this administrator (you) anytime he ask to block me from anything. This admin was on break for awhile and this user could have had any one take a look at this simple issue but it's very weird that all the time he goes to you for blocking request. There are so many controversial things about BAPS and I know this user will be obsessed with removing them. I have seen kapil.xerox at least 4-5 times based on the history come to you to react to my edits when others tell him to gain consensus and realize that his likely religious group has problems. I just want to note this so that if any other admins take a look at this, they can question too why this user keeps going to this admin to block me.

Swamiblue (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I wrote this request since Bbb23 had stated very clearly after several blocks: “Consider this your last chance. If you resume this activity - or anything like it - after expiration of this block, the next block may be indefinite.” To this point, I will respond to Swamiblue's accusations in three large buckets in the interest of clarity and conciseness. It is not necessary to argue all of his rebuttals.
Firstly, I want to respond to the repeated accusation the user is making about a supposed conspiracy between me, and you, and a host of other knowledgeable editors (User:Actionjackson09, Bladesmulti, User:HinduPundit, User:Sacredsea[90] - "I assume that kapil and pundit will be here shortly in no time to disagree with me"). I am not sure where this is coming from. Not only does this show a direct lack of good faith in other editors, but it is the default argument the user makes every time their point of view does not reach consensus. Slinging mud every time the user does not have their way by theorizing about some grand conspiracy makes him unfit to maintain a neutral point of view in editing in this category WP:CONSPIRACY.
Secondly, Swamiblue repeatedly violates BLP. The user mentions that I removed content that does not violate BLP policy on a talk page that an admin warned me against it, (although Dr. K is an editor, not an admin), but I was following WP:BLPTALK policy that states that libelous content should be removed not only from the main page, but also from the talk page, and all other places. I also sought consensus on this issue. The user keeps adding such content, which has been discussed to death by other editors and consensus has been reached. If user desires to include it the onus is on them to defend why it should be included. Ignoring consensus on the basis of some made-up conspiracy theory does not warrant an inclusion.
Finally, the user engages in edit-warring. For example, the user mentions that I reverted his edit on April 29th. Actually, the user 'reverted their own edit' after consensus had been reached on both April 20th and April 28th. The user is bringing up debates again and again, editing and reverting their own edits, and yet points the finger at me. I am not sure what is the cause of this confusion, but this sequence is extremely disruptive. Perhaps the user should start their own blog and become a Lord of their Domain.
Suffice to say, these points and a host of many others warrants an indefinite block. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You seem to be obsessed with following my account and editing history. Like I said before, I think it is really sad that your sole purpose of your account is to literally check what I have made edits to and dispute it and reach an imaginary inflated consensus for controversy regarding BAPS related topics. And you troll my edits and have been proven wrong by so many other users for removing documented criticism towards these articles and then you try your best to hide the criticism by tucking it away in the body of an article so that readers at a glance do not see a balanced article.

Why are you not concerned with this notice that has been there on the Akshardham page for over half a year but [91] but constantly monitor my work. Why have you not answered my post on this article [92] but have time to contentiously look at every single edit I make. You seemed to be obsessed with removing the Sexual Abuse allegations that made national news and merited a response from BAPS. Not only was consensus reached not to include that but you had the audacity to remove talk page posts when you do not have the right to do so. Talk about reviving resolved issues? You literally showed so much conflict of interest when you tried to erase that from the talk page. It was done and there were so many other things that you can improve on for these related topics but you are hellbent on making sure pramukh swami is viewed here as clean and controversy free that your willing to delete the resolved talk page just so you anyone who is reading the article and looks at the history does not see that Pramukh swami was accused of rape and torture by his former sadhus. The articles, news clips and discussions elsewhere that actually reported the incident making it notable event even though your cannot bear to see that, will always exist on the internet and there is nothing you can do to stop that. I didn't do anything to reignite that and you got caught cheating and your biases are evident through that edit. All the things in the world to address and edit but you picked erasing that talk page.

You have been blocked in the past for edit warring so don’t over look that. Based on your editing pattern and history, I can only assume and ask you if you have a conflict of interest because it is extremely annoying that you and a few other users band together anytime there is an edit regarding anything about BAPS that you guys perceive negative. Here is just a few examples where your clear prejudice is shown: Examples of the same group of users obsessing over any critical discussion regarding BAPS and related topics:


I do not need to start a blog or do anything but point out that you seriously need to read the conflict of interest page. Literally any time there is any criticism, controversy or scandal with BAPS related topics, you show up, call your posse to get it removed, try to block me and it hasn’t worked for you. I have gone overboard with my words in the past and I strongly apologized and have taken my work seriously but at this point you have shown that all you care about is whitewashing all of the articles that are maybe, just maybe, religiously important to you and you fail to see that your ALWAYS argue, debate and swindle any type of condemnation towards these certain topics. I have documented proof that if anything YOU need a topic ban.

Another example of trying to get your beliefs to readers using this site can be found on the BAPS main article heading. You have written it so poorly and it is highly misleading. I asked some people if they understand from the summary whether or not they under that BAPS was founded when Shastriji left the swaminarayan sampraday due to a different interpretation and nothing states that for anyone looking for a high level summary. This admin has asked me not to edit that part but I have presented 10 books stating that the founder of BAPS left the original group (Vadtal Diocese of the swaminarayan sampraday) to create this organization but since you manipulated it to what you want people to read and then accuse me of all sort of nonsense. Look at this misleading information from the BAPS article: “BAPS was established as a formal organization on 5 June 1907 by Shastriji Maharaj. It was formed on the founder's doctrinal stand that Swaminarayan had promised to remain manifest in the person of Akshar, a term used to describe his chief devotee and Swaminarayan's abode”

That introduction above is so poorly written and unclear with so much bias. There is nothing that shows that this is a separate break off group from the original group when the founder left to preach a new philosophy. Why are you allowed to present this on a large scale article as the header when your primary sources state that Shastri left the sampraday after forming a new innovation even though he himself didn’t think that? It is unbelievable that no one calls you out on it and I feel that you have such a strong conflict of interest by potentially being a member of this group because there is no way to argue that BAPS was formed after Shastri was expelled from the original group. I feel like it is your duty to this group and the guru to do your part as an adherent to make sure that BAPS is only positively portrayed and since BAPS is a faction or split, you have have to lead readers on that BAPS is the right mode of worship and is the only correct group of Swaminarayan had when instead he himself created the Swaminarayan Sampraday and 100 years later a guy came along and interpretated something else. You titty dance around that fact and do not even let readers know about the original group by linking it in the verbiage and let them know how this is a breakaway group. I presented my case here [93] and [94] only to have the same group of users keep ganging up against all of the cited materials to weasel out of having this information clarified. I asked bbb23 who was watching the discussion based on personal requests from kapil.xerox to chime in and tell me if I am going about things the right way and as an admin, he excluded himself when he could have clarified and done what’s best for Wikipedia. You can see all my sources and proof that the introduction is terrible and gives no explanation how the group was actually formed. The crazy thing is BAPS is quite literally found on cherry picking pieces of writings and ignoring the larger scale doctrines which is fine, it is a break off group, but when people like you troll online and try to prove that 'your' group is theologically correct and manipulate and contrive ways to force people to think a certain type of way, then it is blatently wrong.

Where I am wrong, I have learned to admit and I proved it with my post above when actual consensus was reached. I have changed my working to use logic and reason and show remorse over past mistakes. I ask you to realize that this is not about you and your relationship with BAPS. That’s all I asked. I was blocked for awhile so I was not able to reach out to more users to give their input. That is why I opened up some older discussion but you’re lying here that I am conspiring about your editing patterns.

Also it is noteworthy that as soon as I linked the 2002 Gujarati Riots and the 2002 Akshardham terrorist attack in the Pramukh Swami article under the interfaith harmony section as needed without making any changes to the wording of the article as shown here [95] at 4:28 on May 1st, Kapil.xerox realized that this is a irreversible edit under any circumstance and forever links pramukh swami to what kapil percieves as two negative incidents involving pramukh swami and immediately start crying to this admin to have me blocked as seen here on the 'same day' [96]. How much proof is needed of WP:CONFLICT? Kapil, you seriously need to read WP:COI, WP:APPARENTCOI and consider putting connected contributor tag on your page. And maybe some users who are members of a sect such as potentially sacredsea, actionjackson and hindupundit among others are able to handle themselves but when it is this blatant and apparent, someone has to speak up.

At this point, I am just asking that everyone that has been involved with my history and these topics take a look at this. I hope that administrators can really take a look at my points and Kapils points and see what the root cause of the disputes are. Blocking me is just another way this user can filter how BAPS is viewed to readers online and that is wrong, agenda driven and against what Wikipedia stands for. Swamiblue (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I warned Swamiblue multiple times on their Talk page to not accuse me of COI. And yet they have started all that business again. I don't get why the user feels that whoever disagrees with them has a COI. I am going to report them to the Administrators noticeboard - because this is enough. Bbb23 - I don't even understand how can we expect a civil discussion from Swamiblue whose every argument is personalized. Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's go. I am so sick of your antics on here pretending not having a Conflict of interest. You have disputed any criticism, controversy and scandal associated with BAPS. I may have wronged in the past but I have proof of your editing pattern and articles that show that you are harassing my edits, and removing anything that you perceive as negative to this religious group. I want the administrators to look at everything involved so they can make a decision. I placed a notice on your page. Swamiblue (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tom94022

Thanks for your intervention with Tom94022 last week. You did not need to look at his history. He is still causing problems. He has put a false claim in an article and when challenged for a reference, put in a vague reference which turned out to be entirely invented. The claim also turned out to be incorrect. You can read the full story at User talk:Tom94022#False information and fake references.

There is another referencing issue where he has reverted several claims where two are based on a source which has declared itself to be unreliable (and probably is unreliable anyway because it is someone's recollections) and one claim that is just unreferenced. He has only reverted the once so far (probably due to absence) but if past behaviour and attitude is anything to go by, I expect a second revert when he returns. If so I intend to take it to ANI.

Thank you for your time. --Elektrik Fanne 12:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible socks of MariaJaydHicky

Hello there! I am wondering if two users Special:Contributions/789 GLB and Special:Contributions/LiqwidNV could be the socks of MariaJaydHicky. 115.164.210.253 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Another Diamese sock?

Could you block Recc0044 as a sock? Same behavior as CanselLal4156. Cheers -- samtar talk or stalk 10:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The user Chander (that was blocked as a sockmaster in November)

I was looking over some of his redirect articles and seem to find it interesting that some of them have become full fledged articles by people who have never posted anywhere else, not sure if this is worth a spi, but might be something to look over (such as a article I just put a BLP prod up for Rohit Bharadwaj) Wgolf (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your work in Sockpuppet Investigations Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI Question

First of all thanks for closing the "Tikeem" SPI. In the future is it worth it even to create a new SPI for the socks that may appear, or just tag them as usual vandals? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If the socks are already indeffed, you can list them at SPI "for the record", but don't request a CU. If a CheckUser wants to run a CU or a clerk wants to endorse it, just leave it in their hands. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Chiming in here because it seems actually to be on topic: My apologies for muffing that addition to the Tikeem pantheon today during my Pacific Daylight lunch hour while trying to shove food into my maw with one of my two available hands. Thank you for your patience. I dig WP:DENY as the philosophy here, and as it happened, Nishidani nailed that particular sock for an improper username while I was mid-SPI report. I have nothing but praise and appreciation for your efforts, Bbb23, and issue a pre-emptive apology for fatfingeredness and/or overzealousness in my own activities as they intersect with yours. All the best. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Julietdeltalima: Reading your colorfully written thank you was a pleasure. Richard Posner??--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
HAHAHAHA! I admit that "currently living" is a sad caveat, not to diminish Judge Posner's contributions to the language. It's just that Judge Posner (and his colleague/protégé Frank Easterbrook, who isn't to be pooh-poohed) collectively achieve an improbable elevation of workaday federal appellate judicial opinions into tolerable reading material for non-federal-law-geek-types, more often than not, or at least often enough to prompt "nyaaahh, my favorite author's required by federal law to publish his 26-page nonfiction works at least once a month and yours is just some dude who writes for The New Yorker when he feels like it in between artisanal Mexican/Ethiopian teff/salsa bagels!".
Seriously, I can't imagine ever approaching the Posner/Easterbrook collective level of creating even moderately engaging prose works, week in and week out, about, say, ERISA and federal sentencing guidelines and the Lanham Act, based on oral arguments heard within ONE BUSINESS MORNING. Political agreement is irrelevant; they're federal employees who churn out content that equals their fellow Chicagoan Roger Ebert in provoked joy, just for an audience sadly confined to a professional niche. I hate my job all the time, but when my beloved non-lawyer friends (who included until a couple of weeks ago the late User:Dravecky, whose 1985 junior prom date was yours truly, sho'nuff) try to grok my particular Zeitgeist, it's Posner opinions I recommend for their bedtime reading enrichment, because he understands the limits of layperson understanding and surpasses the notion of "elegance" in translating horseshit jargon into human-ese. Also he is a Cat Person. (And Easterbrook, feline-tolerance status unknown, has a copyright opinion that name-checks Night of the Lepus, which is enough in my book to warrant a SCOTUS nomination on general principle.) All the best for the weekend, sir! Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

UTRS request

Hi, Bbb. On April 29, you checkuser-blocked Voilenarmy1122 (talk · contribs · block log) but there's no link in their block log to an SPI. According to their UTRS request (#15736), they're either playing dumb or may have been caught in crossfire. Do you have a link to an SPI? All the best, Miniapolis 13:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: CheckUsers often block accounts outside of SPIs. Sometimes they are related to known masters and we use our discretion as to whether to tag them, and sometimes, as in Voilenarm1122's case, they are not. I've now found so many socks matching Voilenarmy1122, I've been thinking about creating an SPI for the record, but thus far I've been a bit lazy. Unblocking the account would be a mistake. Moreover, they are not even the master of this small farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply; I thought otherwise because they bothered with UTRS, and will advise them. All the best, Miniapolis 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Accessquasar

I think User:Digitalravan is the sockmaster, if you wanted to merge the Accessquasar SPI into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digitalravan‎ (I don't really know how). See also Special:AbuseFilter/759. This has been ongoing and there's always a large farm of socks ready before they actually start editing again, so feel free to check for sleepers :) Thank you Bbb23, hope you are doing well! — MusikAnimal talk 14:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Merging two cases where archives already exist in both is something I try to avoid. It possible that a real WP:HISTMERGE will do it and preserve the histories of both, but every time I look at those "instructions" I cringe. Usually, I do it with some copying/pasting, which of course does not preserve the history. There are some administrators who "specialize" in history merges, but I don't enlist their help. I've seen Vanjagenije say in edit summaries that he's doing a history merge, but I'm not sure he really is. Either way, I'd rather let him do it, and maybe he can enlighten me as to how to do it myself (though I'm not sure I want to know). Nice filter.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Haha no problem. I thought maybe there was some special SPI way of doing it, sometimes I see "This case has been moved to X" when viewing an SPI page. You can try Special:MergeHistory but I haven't had much luck with it. The easy way is to G6 the target page, move the other page to the target, then restore the revision history. That seemingly always works, but not really the best in the mainspace since the revisions can get all intertwined and out of order — MusikAnimal talk 15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I've done a couple of hist merges at SPI per Vanhagenije's request (before he got the tools), see this where I voted X for change. In this case you'd have to hist merge the main page to the Digitalravan one, revert the archive, then rearchive to Digitalravan, G6 delete the other archive. —SpacemanSpiff 15:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for CheckUser

Hi Bbb23, you've noted on a couple of SPIs I've endorsed that CU wasn't necessary. OK, so I understand that for a check to be warranted, there must ordinarily be some amount of behavioral evidence, but not so much that a clerk would be certain of sockpuppetry based on behavior alone. But:

  1. What should be done if the diffs presented alone don't warrant a clear WP:DUCK sock finding, but it's possible that upon further investigation, diffs can be found to prove sockpuppetry without CU? Are we required to investigate on our own initiative before endorsing CU, or may we choose to endorse based on the diffs presented alone?
  2. What standard of evidence should we use when finding sockpuppetry and requesting admin action? For example, should we be 100% beyond-a-doubt sure, or can we have minor doubts, or should sockpuppetry simply be "likely"? Is this standard changed when a CU would be stale?
  3. Under what circumstances should we endorse for a sleeper check? DQ once said that evidence should be presented that shows "1) There is a significant risk of additional socking OR 2) that the person has socked before and sleepers have gone undetected from the SPI without CU". Do you have any additional guidelines beyond that?
  4. Also, so I can get a better understanding, about how much time (on average) does it take to compare accounts on CU, or to run a sleeper check on CU? I understand the time is highly variable, but I'd like to get a better idea of how much work it means when I type {{endorse}}.

I've tried to apply guidelines with common sense, and I know that answer to these might be "specifics come with experience" or "use common sense". Thanks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

L235 These are all very good questions but they are not susceptible to easy answers. Two general things: (1) cases vary, and it's hard to give a one-size-fits-all answer and (2) experience will be helpful to you. You're smart, you pay attention, and you're a reasonably quick learner, so you have advantages at the outset.
  1. If the diffs are decent but not a slam dunk, I would probe further. I used to do that when I was a clerk.
  2. 100% is absolutely not the standard. More likely than not is the standard, but I don't know if I'd go with 51%, but rather something where you feel the evidence persaudes you that the accounts are owned by the same person.
  3. DQ's guidelines are good. You should also realize that to some extent every time I run a CU, I may come across another account with very little effort. I don't need a clerk to tell me specifically to look for undiscovered accounts.
  4. How much time it takes depends on the CheckUser, not just how fast they are, but also how far they're willing to go in their probe. I think I go further than many, but we don't really compare notes on this sort of thing. I can be finished in an hour, or it can take me over 24 hours (not constant, of course). Usually, if I find it's going to take me a while, I note that at the SPI so no one gets impatient, although most editors are pretty understanding once I say I'm checking.
I hope this helps some. You may also find that the answers to these sorts of questions vary by CheckUser. Some things are fairly cut-and-dried, but others are grayer, to mix metaphors. And it's kinda like having too many "bosses"; to some extent, you have to accommodate the habits of each, although you should never be a sycophant. If you disagree, say so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, this is quite helpful. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's new sock again

Special:Contributions/Poppytheschnauzer and Special:Contributions/188.223.187.130 are possible MariaJaydHicky's socks. 115.164.219.189 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_35&oldid=1142882116"