User talk:Bbb23/Archive 37

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

Another Steverci sock

Hi Bbb23,

I'm 100% sure we got another Steverci sock here.[1]. As theres a huge backlog on the SPI page, I hope you can deal with this straightly to prevent the disruption as much as possible. He's already busy spamming the same edits on the exact same target articles/articles of the same scope, as he made them on his sockmaster account and his previously CU blocked socks.

  • Ditto here,[4], and more exactly similar target articles as those edited by the sockmaster and earlier CU blocked socks, almost all centering on Armenia with a very clear POV,[5]-[6]-[7]-[8]-[9]-[10].

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, yours + four others.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks much for the prompt response + action. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, btw, related to the same matter; I noticed that on numerous occasions user "EtienneDolet" has shown an extremely high amount of interest in literally reinstating edits made by Steverci and his CU blocked socks after that they were blocked.[11][12][13][14] Furthermore, thus given that its clearly not the first time that said user performs such behaviour in relation to Steverci, I noticed that even with this last spree of CU blocked socks by you there, more proof of WP:STEALTH is going on between the two.[15] In fact, he even just blatantly edit wars together with socks of Steverci.[16] (notice that EtienneDolet had never edited this article in question before). I believe this is something that we should definetely keep an eye on, if not already resorting to some sort of action, as this is purely disruptive/WP violating and going on for some time. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
However, every edit made by an editor identified as being a sockpuppet or block evader is not necessarily invalid. If they are reversed after their creator has been blocked, then any editor can take up those edits and make them their own by restoring them. There is nothing initially disruptive in such an action and it violates no rules I know of - but of course the editor taking such ownership of a blocked editor's edits is required to justify them. NB, ongoing issues regarding the Justin McCarthy, Heath Lowry, and other AG denialists articles was raised on the Armenian Genocide talk page, which EtienneDolet frequents.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ritvik12 socks

You recently revoked talk page access on the Ritvik12 sock Marole3 (and thank you for doing so). He is now using the YoshiFann155 account for more of the same. I'm assuming talk page blocking there is a good idea (and 24.130.48.156 might pop up soon).

Two things about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoshiFan155&type=revision&diff=733212633&oldid=732865355 latest nonsense):

  • Ritvik12 mentions requesting a new account. Any way to find this and kill it?
  • The first part is copy-pasted text about a car's air conditioning problem. In the mix on the Marole3 talk page was some nonsensical spam from Onlinesalesteam who was soon blocked as a sock of a seemingly unrelated troll. I don't know how that particular troll found their way to this account and wondered if Ritvik12 might be one and the same (not that it matters, I guess). - SummerPhDv2.0 14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for revoking talk access for YoshiFann155. Ritvik12 is now continuing at the IP, in apparent violation of various blocks. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

An user reverting my edits

A user reverted my edits in this two times claiming that Britannica is a mirror encyclopedia of Wikipedia.I didn't find britannica in Mirrors and forks.So the claim is baseless.
The same user reverted my edits two times in Moroccans
--Yufitran (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you want from me or why you're even notifying me of this problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well: it is after all, a four-day old account. Muffled Pocketed 17:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The account was created on May 2, 2015.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I created this account in 3 August 2016
I just want to let you know about the reverting--Yufitran (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought FIM was referring to the account you were complaining about.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23! I want to let you know that this user “Yufitran” is a possible sock-puppet of user:JovanAndreano. He has been causing a lot of drama on wikipedia by switching Ip adresses on a daily basis making all kinds of sock-edits trying to remove and degrade arabian related information on wikipedia pages for days (See suspected sock-puppets JovanAndreano). Four days ago, it all of a sudden stopped, and I think he created this account to pursue his POV edits.
The Edits that he made on the Moroccan page made no sense. After I made an edit on the Moroccans page, he came to the page aswell (Shows he is following my contributions) to remove and lower the percentages of arab genetics in Morocco without sources link. Today I inserted sources so he can't remove the information anymore, and he reverted that again causing a edit war. He also went to the page of Pre-islamic arabia and removed “arab kingdom” and changed it into “tribal bedouin kingdom” (degrading arabs, his typical behavior)link. He calls me out in the comment section accussing me of stalking (link), which reminds me of the way he was calling out people with his others ip adresses and sock-accounts link, link 2. He also revealed himself by calling me a “stalker” after only having the account for 3 days at that moment. It obviously shows he knows who I am and that I keep an eye on his contributions. It is also quit strange that he only has the account for 4 days, and already makes such advanced edits. It looks like he is making a few good edits on his account right now, but I think that he is already trying to sneakily pursue his POV behavior. Alhaqiha (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Alhaqiha: This is to do with this conversation? Muffled Pocketed 18:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
That was on 31 july when he changed his Ip adresses and damaged articles. The revert was not about reverting the edits of JovanAndreano, I went to the talkpage of NeilN to ask him if he could take a look at a Ip adress which was damaging articles, but later I removed the comment from his talkpage Because I felt like bothering him. He later asked me on my talkpage why I reverted the comment on his page. The revert wasn't about JovanAndreanos edits, but about my comment on the talkpage of NeilN. But it had to do with him indirectly. Alhaqiha (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Bbb23  ;) Muffled Pocketed 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That helps enormously, thanks. The account is now blocked. If you want the IPs blocked, you'll have to reopen the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and advice Bbb23 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! Alhaqiha (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi , thanks for making community a better place , sorry i am new here and love to do something for making information available freely and openly .

I have read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz and added some thing which i thought might be good fit .

The main thing is , do you know the Arron is called a internet hackavist in the article ? .

He was truly "Web Activist" , i had loved to make it on his page but i am scared .

please let me what you think about the same.

Regard Edda C 

Edda.wiki (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi, Bbb23 - I stumbled across the following: [17], and [18] but when I went over to the George W. Bush article to see how it was handled, I didn't see any mention of it. Looks like it might have been a scary place to edit at one time which is why I came here for your thoughts first. Since the article does include the criticism that he was wrong about WMDs, it should be updated. Yes or no? Atsme📞📧 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you reach out to me. I barely touch the Bush or related articles, or even political articles generally. If you're concerned about editing the article directly, bring up the issue on the article Talk page. From the little I know, though, your apparent conclusion from those sources sounds at best incomplete.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, saw your user name in the history, and since you're an admin, I thought you were overseeing the semi-PP. Atsme📞📧 14:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yiftee Page

@Bbb23 Hello I am writing you because I do not understand why you're deleting my page - I have cited and implemented all the necessary requirements that follow copyright law. I work for this company Yiftee I have spent hours a day to contribute and build this page as instructed by the CEO of the company. And if you wish for me to change info to better fit wikipedias rules please share that with me so that the page stays up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoslazaridis (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for your boss to advertise their company. I suggest you contribute to Wikipedia in some more constructive fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) (edit conflict) @Stefanoslazaridis: Your article has been deleted under CSD A-7 which is explained here. Also please review WP:COI since you have admitted a connection Yiftee. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Okay when I do change its content to be more constructive, how do I go about re-creating it? How will it not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoslazaridis (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't suggest you recreate the article in a more constructive way. I suggested you edit Wikipedia (other articles) in a constructive fashion. I'd give up on recreating the article if I were you, but if you really think the company satisfies our notability guidelines, then trying using WP:AFC. That way you'll get feedback from more experienced editors, and the feedback will be more objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@mlpearc I am not being paid to create and contribute to this page. I happen to work for this company and noticed they lacked a Wikipedia page so I took it upon myself to make it. Another thing, how it what I posted not of importance. This company is in the heart of silicon valley and is a renowned tech company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoslazaridis (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You said you were "instructed" by your CEO. If they didn't pay you, they should have. In any event, you don't have to have a financial interest (although you do merely by being an employee) to have a conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 You're an idiot how does what I just said make no sense. I offered to make a page and by "instructed" I meant that they gave me the "okay" to do so, I wasn't required to make it I did it as a side project. Although I work for the company as a data analyst, creating a company wikipedia page isnt in my list of assigned tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoslazaridis (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This idiot doesn't believe you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Brief talk page protection

Hi Bbb23, would you mind protecting my talk page for a day? The user in question who made me ask you this (see revision history if you're interested, lel) doesn't seem to understand anything. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: If you're referring to AmirMuhammad1, the only protection that will prevent them from posting to your Talk page is full, meaning you won't be able to edit the page, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Not the right answer. It also means that for 24 hours no one except an administrator can leave you a message. That's really not a good idea for a problem that's caused by only one user. I've left a warning on the user's talk page. If they violate my warning, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I guess you're right haha. Had really become tired of the constant disruption he caused/the nonsense he kept adding there, hence why.
- Thanks; I will definetely let you know whenever. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock tags

Regarding [19], anyone with eyes in the back of their head can make a conclusion of sock here (even the selection of usernames are obvious). So I don't know why the hostility here. --MuZemike 03:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In April I asked you why you archived an SPI case ([20]). You never responded. Only members of the SPI team may archive cases. Tagging userpages may be done by the SPI team or by an administrator. I don't care what you think is "obvious". You should know all this without having to be told.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No wonder why administrators like you don't get any respect, and why likewise many Wikipedians no longer respect administrators. No common sense is used anymore. It's fucking ridiculous. --MuZemike 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Another sock of user "Ali1872"

Hey B, just found another clear cut sock of this user (^). Are you able to block it manually or do I need to make a SPI page? It literally has the same edits, same target articles, same editorial pattern and the same type of edit summaries,[21][22][23][24] as the sockmaster + previously blocked socks. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The case is too old. Please reopen the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done ---> [25] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work on finding the Sock farm. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It was a lot more work than the case you filed. So many socks. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Johannesgotha's sock returns

Hey,

You previously blocked 83.93.114.80 as an obvious sock puppet of the indeffed user Johannesgotha. Well, today the exact same ip has attempted again to making the exact same edits again, which are the same edits that got making the exact same edits again, which are the same edits that got the user blocked in the first place. Just thought you might want to know. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't my block, but I trust NativeForeigner. Blocked for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Universidad Empresarial Article

Hi Bbb23, you have undone some of my edits of this article. Please note that the Spiegel article that is mentioned in this article does NOT report that reporters were unable to find any professors of the university. It just says that they were unable to find any campus. Thus, I have deleted this part.

In addition, you have cited the Costa Rica Star that has made serious allegations against the university, however the online version of the article does NOT INCLUDE ANY KIND OF PROOF OR SOURCE for these allegations. A press article that makes serious allegations without providing any proper evidence or naming any reliable source can either not be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia or we need to add the information that the article does not specify any source or proof for the allegations. As this is a serious crime of which the University is accused by the article while there is obviously no conviction or judgment against the University, we can't just duplicate these allegations without any critical note. Thus, I have now removed the whole passage. If you want it back, please add a note about the missing evidence in the Costa Rica Star article. Remember, Wikipedia is not extralegal territory and as a lawyer it is my opinion that you should give this some consideration. Please also not that I have no connection to the University at all. My interest is to correct articles wherever they are clearly tendentious as Wikipedia is not there to spread personal judgements. I was pointed to the article by an acquaintance and immediately had the impression that it can't be done this way, on principle and not because of any personal interest involved.

I also want to make clear that I will file an official complaint to Wikipedia if you keep ignoring the facts. In addition, I am also open to take legal measure.

Shivayves (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Coolgama block appeal

Greetings, User_talk:Coolgama has an unblock request regarding an user you CUblocked. Apparently an OTRS appeal (or "appeal") was not processed because it wasn't clear whether it came from the user at all (at least that's what Ohnoitsjamie's response sounds like). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know anything about an appeal, an OTRS appeal, or spoofing (although I've always liked the word). I don't have access to OTRS. As to the merits of Coolgama's unblock request, I don't believe them. Coolgama used many IPs, and they were all over the place, most of them being dodgy. They certainly weren't what I would expect to see if someone is editing from work with a co-worker.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, about the OTRS thing I was giving a bit of non-obvious context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your cose on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather

Hello. Just a minor correction: Felsic was found to be not connected to Lightbreather, but Felsic2, the account that was reported, is a new account that has never been reported before, and thus never cleared of being a sock of Lightbreather (but shows all signs of possibly being one). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Evlekis SPI

Hello, @Bbb23: would you also mind checking Armotrias for connection to the Evlekis SPI case? It's a given, and they're already blocked, but I'd still like it confirmed. If you'd prefer, I can go ahead and create another SPI filing. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: No need to check and please don't reopen the SPI. Also, you don't need to ping me on my own Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. In any case, I've already added {{Sockpuppet|Evlekis|blocked}} (the suspected sockpuppet template) to the suspected sock's userpage to let others know. Also, I apologize for the ping. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. That's not something you should do. No need to apologize, just some friendly advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Our mutual friend, Sockie?

There are a couple of anono-edits [[26]] on Trolleybus that appear to be one of the other participants. Based on his other edits, I expect this may be a another sign of competence questions, though. Anmccaff (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably my edits from the mobile. Did not registered my username on my mobile device. EDIT: very likely to be my IP from lookup and ISP. George Leung (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
And are you copping to [[27]] as well, as you appear to be on the Trackless Trolley talk page? Anmccaff (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not recall those edits, so I don't think that was me.George Leung (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anmccaff: You're going to have to refresh my memory. Who's "our mutual friend" and what's the history vis-a-vis me?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think he's accusing me of socking on Trolleybus. The first one is definitely mine (mobile ip), but the Second one I have no recollection. We do nonetheless is having a slightly more heated talk on Trolleybus's talk page George Leung (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

*@Anmccaff: You're going to have to refresh my memory. Who's "our mutual friend" and what's the history vis-a-vis me?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, none with you particularly, except in the sense that Sockie has some shared features; you've seen one sockpuppet, you've seen 'em all. (Picture Buffy St. Marie singing The Universal Sockie. That, and a little Dickens.) The problem appears to have partially solved itself, anyway. Anmccaff (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock popping

14:44, 3 July 2016 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Johann Pfeffer (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Messina) in violation of ban or block)

And again. Now even faked their own welcome: User talk:LoganBv Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tagged the page uner CSD G5. Also curious that they made a 1 byte edit 10 times to become autoconfirmed THEN created the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The account is blocked and the article is deleted. I also blocked a few other accounts that have been created recently. The irony is, until now, I knew zip about Messina. Someone probably tagged the article, and I verified and deleted it. Anyway, I now know a little more about Messina, although, frankly, I'm not quite sure I understand why there's no SPI for Messina but instead Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James91 Brown. The global locks at that SPI all indicate Messina in parenthesis. I suspect Staszek Lem knows more of the back story?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No; only hearsay, WP:DUCK and [28] + [29] +[30]. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: Those three links are very helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Joel.Miles925. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joel.Miles925: Lovely. I have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe you meant to template the IP you reverted at Rudy Giuliani? BTW, regardless of whose Talk page you leave this kind of message on, it would be much more constructive if you linked to the edit you removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to apologize. I did mean the ip, not you. I made that edit on mobile, so it's possible that was a simple finger slip. Sorry again. Cheers!!! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

Hi Bbb23, not entirely sure if there's anything you can do here as a CU, but can you at least confirm that Qazxw1235 is not a sock of Gadri? Qazxw1235's first edit to their user page was to tag themselves as a blocked sock (here) - I've asked them why, and it may just be a new user mucking around, but I'm not sure -- samtar talk or stalk 12:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Further comments suggesting they may be a sock? -- samtar talk or stalk 12:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Boy, it's easy to get a new username. Blocked as  Confirmed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

checkuser

Do a checkuser check on user:RIP iPad 3 and the other user who made the edit today at 19:52 on Cupid.com. 66.87.79.216 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

MarioFerandez

Im trying to create my wiki page but it seems it got deleted. I am wizzo aka mario fernandez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzogmb (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ambeinghari

He is undoubtedly a sock of User:Harirajmohanhrm, yet he futilely denies it. User:Inside the Valley commented on the SPI page, "Ambeinghari nominated 4 articles for GA within the last 4 days - Suriya, Salman Khan, Mammootty, & Baahubali: The Beginning. Mammootty & Baahubali are new noms, but Suriya([31],[32]) & Salman Khan([33],[34]) were last nominated by Harirajmohanhrm. Inside the Valley (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)". There has been no further comment since. Could you please do something about this? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir, any comment? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
No.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your great contributions on WP:SPI. Keep it up! Cheers. Wario-Man (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Thanks for handling the gazillions of CU requests and SPI cases. GABgab 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A3 detag

I'd like to question your edit comment when you detagged List of B.Tech offering universities (Pakistan), "even when tagged, it wasn't eligible for A3". To my eye it fits the highlighted aspects of WP:A3 100%... "This applies to articles (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images." Where did I go wrong? Cabayi (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

When you tagged it, it wasn't a list of external links. It was a list of internal links, and it had introductory text before it. That's not empty. You should also wait at least 10 minutes before tagging new articles with A1 or A3.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The version I was looking at when I hit the button for A3 was definitely a list of external links. Maybe there was an edit in between that Twinkle concealed but since the article's been deleted now, I'll just have to take your word for it. Point taken about the 10 mins. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You know what? I went back and took another look, and you're right about the external links. The author could've made them internal links, and my eyes just glazed over them. I'm not sure what I would have done because of the introductory text, but I would have at least waited. In any event, my apologies for the mischaracterization.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you help me?

Is this an LTA? If so might I ask whom it is? Zerotalk 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You can ask NeilN, the blocking admin, what he thinks. Per policy, I cannot do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Patient Zero: It's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979 --NeilN talk to me 15:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN. My apologies for not realising you were not allowed to answer, Bbb23. Zerotalk 15:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation that Freddie Fox's birthdate is 5th April 1989

Added source for Freddie Fox birthday being 5th April 1989 and not as wrongly reported 4th May 1989. " 1. Both Freddie Fox & Lilly James have confirmed in interviews that they were born on the same day: - Freddie in [35] - Lily in [36]

2. Freddie's sister has referred to her brother's birthday in April "The best day of my life... was my brother’s birthday in April" - see also answer in [37]-Editfff (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I took the two sources you provided in the article and rearranged the article to show the birthdate. What you did was wrong formatting-wise. Also, we don't put DOB in Early life. So, it's now in the opening sentence of the lead in parens and there's a template in the infobox. I know you don't know all the rules, but thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your recent blockage

Hi, I saw that you blocked the anonymous user[38], I strongly suspect this IP to be contributing with this second IP address [39], since he used the same terms and edits on similar articles, from the same location, where he keeps making antisemitic, racist and francophobics comments and edits [40], [41], [42], [43] and I could quote forever. I need to thanks you for your action, but I have to say that a blockage of 72 hours is not harsh enough for the kind of comments and actions on wiki. I really believe that for racist and heinous posts, the blockage should be much longer but I guess that there is a rule to follow. Anyway I wanted to thank you, you have been the first to take action.--Gabriel HM (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's likely the same person, but that IP hasn't edited in a few days. If they resume their disruption, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood

I saw your message "leave it alone" with the revert and it is understood completely.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent image changed by multiple IPs from UK. 115.164.60.4 (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPI - Triumph of bureaucracy over effectiveness?

FYI. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What did I miss?

In looking over the deleted history of Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari on which I recently did a history merged, I am not seeing any blocked or banned users in the edits where the article had been created (there are a handful). Particularly the most recent version, which was created by Labiba islam (whose version I moved to Draft space) and then edited extensively by Sarah297, neither are blocked or banned, as far as I can tell from their talk pages. Why was this deleted as G5? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I wish I knew what I missed. I could have sworn that when I looked at the contributions of the sock I had just blocked, there was an "N" next to that draft, but I sure can't see any evidence of that in the history. Feel free to restore the draft or, if you prefer, I'll do it. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I restored it. I just didn't want to restore it until I confirmed with you that I hadn't missed anything. The blocked user did edit the article, but didn't create it, and in any case it has had significant contributions from others. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

SJW2a SPI

JUst a quick question, should these account be tied to the master User:Crosswikispamoperator account, which they admitted to be connected to? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just in case

As pings at SPI aren't always reliable...ping! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: You really have to disabuse yourself of that notion. I got the ping and I'm a-lookin'.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I was looking to cut off any possible excuses at the pass ;) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Harumph. Your wish is my command, as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Unrelated?! Are you sure you're not just aiding and abetting a sock account? JUST KIDDING!!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Me again

Just as an FYI regarding your check here, I also stumbled across these related socks, I'm just waiting for a Clerk to merge the material. I imagine there are a boat-load of other related socks but the ranges are painful. If it's not paid editing I'll dismantle my keyboard and eat it piece by piece. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: So many of them. I found three others besides the one listed at the SPI. I don't think you're in any danger having to eat your keyboard, but just to be safe, how about one made out of coated chocolate?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass on the chocolate. Bacon perhaps?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's your keyboard, but if you want it to be tref ... --Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll plunk the keys into a nice chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc. Bottom's up! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed sock + self declared by the master

Bbb23, I was recently reverting this user who happened to be socking on the Iranian Americans page. After a "short dialogue", with me asking whether he had more socks as well, he just declared that TireAshkani is his one and only sock. This is the only sock that I saw/mentioned myself as well. Saving us all some time, I thought I just bring it to you directly here. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

IP editor on Order of the Stick

Hi, I was wondering if you could come over to the Order of the Stick page. An IP editor whose actions led to the page being protected has created an account which has been autoconfirmed. I and others believe that he intends to edit war again, and he appears to be sockpuppeting. The discussion has spilled over to User_talk:EdJohnston#Help_requested_with_IP_editor_you_previously_banned, and I have made another post at User_talk:Diego_Moya#Return_of_the_IP_editor. Eladynnus (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, i've noticed this after the discussion was over (isn't there any rule that you have to notify an user when you talk about him?) but i've got no intention to start an edit warring and i was not sockpupetting. Another user from my country did two interventions in the talk section of the oots talk page and that's all. By the way, that talk section was closed because it was pointless (and i concur about that) Meelanasah (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dave is socking with IP

He created Orangepeel account to remove PROD template. Now this IP sock. --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check

User:Tianderni, who is following in the footsteps of User:Beranpolti at Banc de Binary

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Q

I recently came across Wellness Recovery Action Plan. How were you able to find these below obscure links on the subject. I searched info on the subject but nothing came up useful until I stumbled at the said page.

Can you provide information on how you found them, is there any aggregator sites with better algorithm, its for academic resource digging. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.209.202 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember why I edited the article, but I know nothing about the subject of the article. If I understand your real question, though, you might look at WP:RD and pick whichever reference desk is most relevant to your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Look for sleepers?

See WP:AN#Long-term vandalism at Howie Schwab. Basically, this article has been getting constant vandalism since last year, much of it by one person's socks, and semiprotection hasn't helped; the latest vandal registered several months ago and did just enough unrelated editing to get autoconfirmed: obviously a sock of this person. Could you check for other, related, accounts? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Materialscientist knows much more about this. Look at User:StevenJoarenson and a list of the blocked sock accounts. I'd have to dig deeper to see if there's also a connection to Jaredgk2008, and I don't see the need for it right now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A connection to Jaredgk2008 can be found at David Aldridge. The account Nyttend mentions has some certain connections to Jaredgk2008 that I'd be happy to point out to anyone by email, on request. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I should add that regardless of whether the accounts belong to Jaredgk2008, StevenJoarenson is not the oldest of the crop of recently blocked socks. My guess is MS tagged it early before he'd blocked all of them. These sorts of things can be administrative headaches, even once you've largely stopped the disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just a note: Materialscientist has his pings turned off, so the only way to get his attention is to go directly to his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding something?

Wrt Son of Khaldun, the following log entries are odd: 


      18:46

(Move log)‎ . . [Son of Khaldun‎ (4×)]

18:46 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Eishal Fayyaz to Talk:Eshal Fayyaz over redirect ‎(name was misspelled)

18:46 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) moved page Eishal Fayyaz to Eshal Fayyaz over redirect ‎(name was misspelled)

18:37 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) moved page Eshal Fayyaz to Eishal Fayyaz ‎(The name was misspelled.)

18:37 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Eshal Fayyaz to Talk:Eishal Fayyaz ‎(The name was misspelled.) 

      18:46

(Deletion log)‎ . . [Son of Khaldun‎ (2×)]

18:46 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Eshal Fayyaz ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)

18:46 . . Son of Khaldun (talk | contribs) deleted page Eshal Fayyaz ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)

How does a new user execute a move over redirect with no apparent permission to do so? MSJapan (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at this right now, but my assumption is it is covered by this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) MSJapan, see WP:MOR and WP:VPT#Entries showing up in deletion log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, got it. Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

The user:151.34.106.205 also making unconstructive edits in the article Christian population growth, Christianity by country. These article are sourced by Pew Research Center's, "Eurobarometer, national Census". which is a not christian sources. He is Attacking me like a person who knows me? I assume he is user:Anatha Gulati. --Jobas (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP is disruptive but not Anatha Gulati.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI

I filed SPI against Astudent0. You asked me to move it to Papaursa's SPI. Mike V has found them to be likely. Why should we target Papaursa, if my suspicion is that Astudent0 and Jakejr are connected? I request that Astudent0's SPI should be separated from Papaursa. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Make the request at the SPI, and a clerk can respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you please make the comment, as never before, I made any request to separate an SPI. I want Astudent0's SPI to be separated from Papaursa's SPI. People are going to get a wrong understanding that I filed SPI against Papaursa, which I didn't. Thanks. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It'll be a first for you. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Abdullsaed

Hello, Bbb23. It seems that banned user Abdullsaed (talk · contribs) is back, this time as Star303 (talk · contribs). IMHO, this is quite a DUCK. Please, check it out and make your judgement. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The technical evidence doesn't demonstrate a match.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit pattern is de facto identical with both accounts (and with other socks of Abdullsaed). Star303 is launched today, and continues where Abdullsaed and his socks stopped when they got blocked. Their contributions clearly show that. --Sundostund (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way - try to match Star303 with some of other socks of Abdullsaed, like IsseGarowe (talk · contribs), Xamxamaa (talk · contribs), Dardaaransom (talk · contribs), Amamaalin (talk · contribs) and Gssom (talk · contribs). --Sundostund (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You'll have to start an SPI, which wouldn't be a bad idea anyway, and make your behavioral arguments there - and more than just a conclusion. I'm not taking any action at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll think about it. --Sundostund (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion (Deadpool)

Nathan himself confirmed it. It may be deleted but it still counts. The Scene is literally on YouTube, "No 5 Bathroom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Riquelme (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't care. It doesn't belong in his "body of work".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
But his cameo in Guardians of the Galaxy does, just because his credited in the Credits. So what if it's deleted, it still counts. Look at Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, in the Field of Dreams page. They get credited as EXTRAS. At least Nathan had an actual role. But his cameo in Guardians of the Galaxy does, just because he's credited in the Credits. So what if it's deleted, it still counts. Look at Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, in the Field of Dreams page. They get credited as EXTRAS. At least Nathan had an actual role. I would just like to go to his page and see the film there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Riquelme (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Piet.delaney's sockpuppetry investigation

I recommend that User:Piet.delaney be re-instated and that his other account Pete.delaney be block. I have known Piet.delaney for over a decade and am pretty sure that if he had known that multiple accounts are not allowed he would not have created one. I don't see a significant advantage on him having had two accounts . In others words I failed to see the abuse. So in the interest of Internet courtesy and diplomacy I ask that Piet.delaney be unblock.Arradis (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

He'll have to request an unblock himself for it to be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
How can he request an unblock if his account has been disabled? -- Arradis (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
He has access to his Talk page. All he has to do is ask there. To save a little trouble, though, see WP:GAB for what you can do when blocked and how to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
He claims that he does not have access to his Talk page.Arradis (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what to say. He does have access to his Talk page. Just look at the block log. What does he say happens when he tries to edit it?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Pete.delaney posted a defense on his talk page on August 23 and August 24;however, you reverted his defense postings.Arradis (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the block

... of 70.212.6.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Would you be so kind as to extend it to three months, in line with this guy's other socks? See my sandbox and Ponyo's talk page. TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did it only because I know that Ponyo isn't around (she has the nerve not to "work" many weekends), and I trust her judgment. However, I don't feel comfortable doing any more than I've done, so you'll have to go back to pleading your case with Ponyo when she returns. BTW, I thought your report about the IP's return was clever.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion on odd editing

Hi B, curious what you think about this. I'm having some trouble figuring out the proper administrative approach here. We've got obvious socks, but some ancient accounts...

What would you do here, administratively, speaking? I know that some of these editors have to be the same guy, but I know that it would be impossible to CU back to Doerrman. I don't mind creating an SPI, but I don't know what master to put it under, and I'm also not clear on how some of the other accounts could be dealt with. I'm also curious if he's running more accounts, since it seems like he's got a few going on at once. Your input is appreciated, thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I've  Confirmed and blocked Amelia Earhart the brown chicken, Snuffleupagus, Snirkel, and Autumn the cat. Those were all that were not stale, right? I didn't see any others. I'd open the SPI under Doerrman if you think the behavioral connection is clear. All those accounts that were blocked years ago were done without an SPI, and it would be good to have a record.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doerrman in case you want to post the CU results. Thanks for looking into it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, I didn't realize until after I posted my findings that you'd already tagged the master and puppets. There's no reason I can see to keep it open. Do you want to close it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned that in my last comment. I could undo the tags and wait for a clerk to decide if you think that's smarter, or we could just close. I don't mind either way. I tagged the socks as suspected, not as confirmed to the master. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI for Onur1905x

Sorry to have had to open it again but they are doing the same thing again, creating new accounts to contest deletion of their page. Just added 3 more to the SPI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salvidrim!

I don't think it meets the definition of vandalism. Frivolous? Sure. But responding with a dismissal sounds better to me than deleting it.... anyways, it's up to you, I don't really mind either way. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A retaliatory SPI in response to a content dispute is vandalism. I've warned the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Steverci is still socking

Hi Bbb23, you recently blocked another sock army of Steverci. Well, he's still at it, now through another IP making the exact same edits.[44] This new sock IP has the exact same geolocation as one of his earlier IP socks which you blocked as well.[45][46][47] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, I know that you're very busy and if you, thus, deliberately skipped this (as well as my message above) then excuse me. If you missed it however, I'd like to ask if you could take a look at both messages whenever you have time. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I contact you via email regarding a SPI case

Can I contact you via email regarding a SPI case? jason[dot]mphil1985 [at] gmail [dot] com Thank you.Cantab1985 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'll read it, but I don't respond by e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What is your email for Wikipedia? I would like it to be private.Cantab1985 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Click on Special:EmailUser/Bbb23 to e-mail me. If you mean the contents of your e-mail, I can't promise anything in advance of having read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just sent the message please reply here if you have seen it. Contact personally regarding it thank you.Cantab1985 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I received your e-mail. As I said at the outset (see above), I will not contact you personally.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Lau Siu Lai

Lau Siu Lai isn’t a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Lau Siu Lai have Reputation in Hk.I am richard923888（~\(≧▽≦)/~) 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Story

I see you deleted The Story, but I think this was wrong. It was the victim of disruptive socking by User:Charliewolf79 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charliewolf79/Archive#04 June 2016 and should have been just reverted to the previous redirect. I could create a new redirect but that would be without the non-trivial history of this page. So can you please undelete it. The redirect can be restored and the socking taken care of with blocks or protection.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I restored it and semi-protected it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclearly tagging to AFD

I can't believe this tagging CSD but kept Sending to AFD you can look this Special:Contributions/KATMAKROFAN You can deal with it? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 02:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

Dear Bbb23, I've just started to write in Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with all the details. Yesterday I've been trying to add to Wiki an international company I work at, Brenmiller Energy: www.bren-energy.com, and it has been deleted from my sandbox :( I don't understand why, and I was in the middle of the writing and designing, so its a bit frustrating.... I've seen similar companies in wikipedia such as EnergyNest. I am an environmentalist and I believe that its important to write on renewable energy and energy efficient. I will be more than happy if you could explain me why have you deleted my work. Thank you and best wishes, Adi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi Chap (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything from your sandbox. I deleted the article from name space per WP:CSD#A7 and I blanked your sandbox, which had nothing of any value in it. You shouldn't be writing an article about your own company as you have an obvious conflict of interest. If you are working on an article, you shouldn't put it in article space until it's ready. New editors at Wikipedia are encouraged to use the WP:AFC process so more experienced editors can give feedback as to the notability of the proposed article and any other issues that arise that cause it to be unsuitable for Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tagging users as sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Enurarfa

--Marvellous Spider-Man 11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

New account, more silly tennis articles

Two new articles popped up tonight. List of Grand Slam winning black tennis players and List of Grand Slam winning Asian tennis players. Created by brand spanking new editor Mariasakkari. We just had a bunch of these "types" of articles deleted that were created by User:Neebras‎, a sock of User:Nouman khan sherani, and I fear fruit-of-the-loom may be upon us again. No proof mind you, but it has me worried. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That one plus Nafisaali (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm always worried I'm being paranoid on these types of reports and that it's a legitimate new editor. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-created sock article

Hello Bbb23, as you have been dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86 including its current closing, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard A Kimball Jr. - Healthcare Expert, another evasive copy for the Kimball article mentioned in the SPI case. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion now. GermanJoe (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: That was complicated. I've blocked TheNewsHerald2000 and deleted the article per G5. You can see my reasoning at the SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Able

You previously deleted Carrie Able as G5. The page was created again by a new account. I CSDed it as G4 (since there was an AFD), but thought I should alert you to it since it could be socking. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Account blocked, article deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy IP-hopper evading block

Victory Clarion, after creating five socks that have been blocked (by you, along with the master), is now evading the blocks by editing logged out as an IP-hopper. It was already obvious that s/he lives in LA from this post-COI-warning logged-out edit in July [48] (identical to this previous logged-in edit in early June [49]), and the IP-hopper who has been adding promotional stuff to the article ever since the last sock was blocked is from LA. Would you mind semi-protecting the article? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm liberal about such things, but I don't think it has sufficient recent disruption to warrant protection. If that changes, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, they just registered yet another account:
Parkprowler8 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Would you mind CUing and blocking that one, or do I have to go through the tiresome ritual of letting them post a little more (and cleaning up after them) until I officially report them? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Neebras

what was the master account? email me if more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Neebras's user page states who the master is: Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thanks;; I must have missed it. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello can you see here. The fact that this IP and Juliandas51 even knew of that Wikimedia Commons old thing and used it to smear me is telling alot.--Jobas (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not Anatha Gulaty, Ich Pilot, or any other user who tormented Jobas in the past months. As a checkuser you Bbb23 probably already know this. Yet this doesn't mean that Jobas' editing is good. I have discovered his edit history in Wikimedia Commons just because I'm good at searching.
Bbb23, as a user with a long history and an ArbCom-appointed checkuser I expect you to act thoughtfully and reasonably. Let me tell you that you are not doing a good thing in defending Jobas every time someone advances a criticism of his editing style.--151.18.105.221 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

John Jaffar Janardan

I noticed you blocked John Jaffar Janardan as a sock but didn't cite an SPI in the block log. I was wondering if you could say who JJJ is a sock of so his userpage can be tagged accordingly. Everymorning (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't tag his userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
why did you not tag his userpage? when will we be able to know your intentions? ToddyWiper (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi Bbb23! I saw you recently blocked Chfhfzdbn as a sock of Pablo909. Hipsydipseee (which was blocked by Oshwah )has edited that page and I reverted it. Hipsydipseee also has/had created a slough of user pages for new accounts. I was wondering if the two might be related? Would this be enough for a CU/SPI? Should I file one or can you look into it? Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's zero behavioral connection between Hipsydipseee and Pablo909.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay I wan't familiar and though't I'd ask thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you block people without leaving any reason behind. When they appeal you don't even answer them. Please explain what kind of authority do you have? you are acting taliban... I'll take it to proper noticeboard...just informing you.. you seem to abusing checkuser rights... I'll make proper case at proper noticeboard with all examples of your recent enforced blocks... Do you not need to explain when you block somebody? ToddyWiper (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note this user opened a thread at WP:ANI about this just thought you should be made aware. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Quacked loud enough to get blocked for quite obvious sock puppetry. -- Dane2007 talk 04:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Can I ask why five full reverts made by editor Needbrains are not considered a violation of 3RR? EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You really need to read the policy. Consecutive edits don't constitute more than one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I read the 3RR policy about the consecutive edits thing, the way the sentence was composed, at least to me (English not my primary language), I did not understood that consecutive edits don't constitute more than one revert. Fine, my bad, I can try talking to him more. But I ask now, taking into account the editors past behavior (like I explained at the noticeboard) of being hostile and uncivil towards fellow editors, and constantly edit warring, and considering all of this his medal, what do you suggest if he takes the same tone again (mocking me and insulting as he already did)? What is your advice? If he makes more reverts of my edits, and does this time violated 3RR, should I report him or do something else? EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You can always report him if he violates 3RR. It would be better if the two of you could work it out, but that depends on both of you focusing on content, not conduct. There are also other ways to resolve issues of disputed content that don't require his participation. The easiest way is to start a dialog on the Talk page and hopefully other editors, not just you, will engage.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I will try. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dilkrishna Shrestha

Hi, am considering a deletion review on this because the article had references that showed he is an actor and film producer so had a claim of significance. Can you please explain why it was deleted? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people are actors and film producers. That doesn't make them inherently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This article had sources that seemed reliable confirming his acting and producing a number of films through his own production house which is different to most actors so am inclined to go to deletion review Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Not one of his films appears to have an article en-wiki. Many people start their own production companies. If he's notable at all, it sounds like it's restricted to urban areas of Nepal, which is hardly enough to qualify someone for a Wikipedia article. His journalism between 2061 and 2065 is quite remarkable. I have a suggestion. I can userfy the article for you to work on. If nothing else, it needs polishing. You can then either submit it through WP:AFC or directly into article space. If it gets tagged again as an A7, I won't be the reviewing administrator because I rarely delete an article per A7 twice. I let another administrator look at it. In any event, I think that will be faster than deletion review, but it's entirely up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, can you userfy it for me please, the films not having articles is a good point so will check the sources more carefully before AFC or article space Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Here it is: User:Atlantic306/Dilkrishna Shrestha. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hello and congrats on 105,957 edits! Have fun editing! :) Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about SPI "relisted" status

Hi. When an SPI is marked as "Relisted" (e.g., the CensoredScribe SPI), does it need to be re-endorsed before a CU will look at it? Or does the "relisted" status imply a new endorsement? I'm just wondering because the CensoredScribe SPI has been sitting idle for over a week since being relisted. Thanks for any enlightenment. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richwales: No, it doesn't need to be re-endorsed. I frankly don't understand that case and its history, and I was hoping that Ponyo and/or Mike V would sort it out, but Ponyo is apparently done for the moment, and Mike hasn't stepped in.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why are you reverting my edits on talk pages? Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you editing other editors' comments? BTW, I meant to put in an edit summary when I undid your edit, but my pinky slipped and hit the Enter key.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, just because I edited someone else's comments doesn't mean you can revert a page, your abusing your power. Second off, your starting to Wikihound. Third, WP:TPO says that you can fix format errors. I was putting a damn bullet there, which is how you reply to a suggestion. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You're wrong on all counts. I suggest you take a break. You're not helping yourself continuing the way you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok well if "adding a bullet" is bad, deleting a comment is worst. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't be surprised when you make an edit you shouldn't make that the entire edit is undone even if part of it is arguably okay. In any event, your comment was completely inappropriate and still is now you've re-added it. "end of discussion"? What kind of thing is that to say in a discussion with other editors? I'm leaving it alone because god knows I'm not about to start reverting all inappropriate Talk page comments, but in your case it's yet another indicator of your poor judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
When I said "end of discussion", I didn't mean it that way, it's a common expression in real life, which was badly portrayed in the text. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It is a common expression and except when used humorously is considered rude.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I never intended to use it humorously, I'm sorry if it offended you. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand. It's usually offensive when it's not used humorously. In the Talk page discussion, it's dismissive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
My 1000th edit ^. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mea Culpa Comment

I apologize. I was way out of line.--Adam in MO Talk 03:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa

Not sure what to do about this - don't appreciate having my comments deleted on an SPI. I believe they are, in the main, directly relevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's Marvellous Spider-Man's place to revert, but, as it happens, I agree with them that it's irrelevant, so please leave it alone. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Fine - not sure I agree about the relevance - but I (or others) did say most of what I thought previously.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
PRehse is a good editor. He has 80,000 edits. I didn't file this against him. He had mentioned a previous SPI, where he was linked with this group. PRehse just have similar interests. But I am ignoring their comments directed at me like righteous cop wanna be and I have had it with sore losers. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Proving one's innocence in a sockpuppet investigation

What is the fastest way to prove one's innocence in a sockpuppet investigation? As you know, I am currently being accused by User:Voceditenore of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/84101e40247. 85.165.228.44 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

None.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure of thread “Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James”

My complaint against these editors have not been addressed; therefore you are requested to remove the closure template. The problem that I am reporting is WP:article ownership and breach of WP:local consensus. The comments received in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents did not address this at all and mischaracterized this as a “content dispute”. It is not a content dispute; my report has always been against the behavior of Jytdog and now additionally Doc James and I made this clear in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James. If not by opening a thread or removing the “discussion archived” templates, how are editors supported to challenge inappropriate closures when the concerns have not been addressed?. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

My closure stands. You raised the same issue before. You were given advice that perhaps you don't like. Opening another is a waste of the community's time. The closure stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Who should "close" an SPI?

Sorry if this is an elementary question that I should know the answer to, but is it proper for a non-clerk to change the status of an SPI to "close"? Or should that be left for clerks to do? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I just saw the discussion at BU Rob13's Talk page and was about to comment there. Rob is right. A non-clerk administrator may close an SPI, just not archive it. In fact, I'm happy when an administrator blocks and closes, saves a step for us.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for setting me straight. I think, sometime long ago, before I became an SPI clerk, I marked a case as "closed" and was chided for doing so, so I got my misimpression about the procedure. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. As a side note, you expressed concerns about my potential involvement at SPI during my RFA. My involvement has been restricted to SPI situations that I come across on my watchlist or while doing other tasks, but do you have any feedback related to my limited participation? (To be clear, this is purely a request for feedback, not a gateway into becoming more involved; I'm swamped as it is.). ~ Rob13Talk 17:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I of course haven't been monitoring your SPI activity, but everything I've seen looks good.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I used to worry about closing SPIs. I'd block per WP:DUCK and suggest in a mealy-mouthed way that "This can now be closed". But I always felt I was leaving unnecessary work for someone else, so finally I took my courage in both hands and closed one myself, thinking "They can always desysop me if it was the wrong thing to do, who cares". And nobody complained; the clerk simply archived after a while. So now I do it all the time. But since there's room for doubt and hesitation, perhaps there should be something about it in the commented-out instructions to admins? Or somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

advise on potential sock

I'm having a conversation with an editor and my spidey-sense is tingling a bit. It's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Junior_performance_timelines. Suddenly an anon Ip gets involved. We don't get that much editing there to begin with and anon Ip's even rarer (the last being in 2011), but it's certainly plausible since he says he got it off one of my summaries. The thing is, this anon IP (70.70.234.62) last made edits in 2015 in defense of the exact same editor I'm arguing with now...and in a completely different topic (music). This anon Ip is in the Vancouver area of Canada and the person I'm arguing with is a member of wikiproject Vancouver. I guess it could be friend or just a big coincidence. But before I brought it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations I wanted to ask if you thought I was just being paranoid. I've been wrong before and I really hate being a bad guy for no good reason. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually get into these kinds of things, Fyunck(click). I would just use your own judgment. I wouldn't worry about being a "bad guy", though.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your advice

Hi Bbb. Before I start editing Bonnie Burton, I'd value your thoughts re: the intro, lists of non-notable publications, and any other promotional and unsourced content. It looks like a bit of a vanity piece, but I don't want to be accused of overzealousness for the inevitable carving. I've reported this at COI. Thanks, and I hope all is well. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:E562:BE4F:6CEE:A08D (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to be overzealous with that piece of advertising about non-notable activities. From the opening sentence to the end it's awful.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts, as well. Cultivated by the subject. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:E562:BE4F:6CEE:A08D (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Can "Haldanes" Be Put into the Title Blacklist?

I think that the sockpuppets who are trying to advertise Haldanes are likely to keep trying. Can Haldanes be put into the title blacklist? (I don't like the title blacklist, but this looks like a valid use for it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a "title blacklist". Where is it described?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
At MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. — Sam Sailor 12:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam Sailor. Are there guidelines for when it should be used?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a clue, its use obviously is above my paygrade. — Sam Sailor 12:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

your comment left on my talk page

@MBisanz:: I thought that the discussion on the page was over and I didn't want to clog up that guy's talk page, and wanted to leave him a note about where it ended up. I thought wikipedia worked more like a google document. Clearly I was wrong. I don't know what part of it I'm allowed to edit and what part I'm not. I'll figure it out eventually! Thanks for your feedback and your patience with my learning. Icareaboutart (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Retiring section

One's supposedly in Texas, the other in Indiana. Not possible to get from one to the other in half hour, I assume?! The IPv^ has made no other contributtions; the old IP, on the other, has made plenty- including this one undoing Mmyers1976. AND has quite a lot of interaction wth him. So either the IP was impersonating Mmyers on JW's page, or.

Muffled Pocketed 16:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(tps) I wouldn't worry about it. This link shows the geolocation of the IPv6 address to be in Houston, of which Katy is a suburb. The lesson here is to not trust geolocation information, particularly that of IPv6 addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD- so is likely they are all the same editor? The point originally wasn't so much the geography, but the chronology. The old IP was editing at the same time as Mmyers was. If they're the same person, he was editing logged out and logged in at the same time. Surely? Muffled Pocketed 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The logged-in comment was the day before the the other two, and the time between those two is reasonable for a morning commute. I haven't run any checks, obviously, but I don't see anything that makes me doubt that they're the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, DoRD, I agree. So the same editor was logging off to edit then. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 12:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Village Roadshow Pictures/film production companies socks

Recently you blocked these accounts ([50] [51]) as sockpuppets without tags. Do you know who is the master? I believe I've been seeing more of these socks lately and was considering notify SPI, but I'm not sure which name I should file it under. Sro23 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe there were only those two accounts and Jason was a few hours older.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Supperdagga

Hi could you look at this user: This recently created account (which I believe is linked to Eulalefty) has exactly the same edit as an IP's edit you have just blocked. Many Thanks. --Peaceworld 20:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: There was more than just one, so I posted the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eulalefty. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Submissions

It is a submitted user draft. 333-blue 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to say more than that. Concision is lovely but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bridgetredford

This user is blocked by yourself, as a non-checkuser block. There is s long-ish thread both on her userpage and in the SPI discussion. Having seen her response to my query on her talk page I am minded to unblock her; I do appreciate that you have already given carte-blanche in the SPI thread, but would feel more comfortable if you would re-visit her talk page and comment. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

spi

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scionica if there meatpuppets what action can I take ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You should wait for the final outcome at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Junior5a is not nice

I would like you to do a checkuser check here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Junior5a is not nice. CLCStudent (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I've endorsed the CU request. GABgab 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How's my favorite checkuser?

Any quick help with the socks that have caused every reference desk page to be protected? Example. --NeilN talk to me 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not like you to use flattery. I bet you say that to all the CUs. I looked at a handful, and if your objective is to get IP blocks or IP range blocks, I'd say forget it. The IPs are all over the place, and based on what I checked, there's zero way to predict which ones they'll use next. Almost all proxy servers, and others are probably being used as if they were. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Only to the ones who have blocked me for socking :-) Thanks for checking. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User cat person

I don't think the user cats person is getting it even now. (Personal attack removed). - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Somebody's sock

User talk:Lucie part. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked. GABgab 02:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Abdullsaed again (?)

Hello, Bbb23. It is quite possible that banned user Abdullsaed (talk · contribs) is editing as BoonDogleHero (talk · contribs) now. IMHO, this may be a DUCK. Please, check it out and make your judgement. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, please check Mo2244 (talk · contribs) as another possible sock of Abdullsaed. --Sundostund (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sundostund: BoonDogleHero is Red X Unrelated. Mo2244 is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. If you believe you've identified more socks in the future, please create an SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reaction. I always tend to inform admins instead of creating an SPI, in order to get a faster clarification about (potential) socks. --Sundostund (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Is there any way of verifying me via third party app such as linkedin, as a person intimately involved with the security sector in my country I have tried my best to follow the complex rules of wikipedia in providing my references, @Sundostund has taken upon himself to literally change every single thing with out reference to veracity of information input, in the end it would be great to improve a reference encyclopedia such as wiki but am involved literally in the process of rebuilding the security sector and thats the bottom line, if such info is not needed no problem, but immediate accusations like this wont help wiki especially on info for fluid post conflict countries like somalia. BoonDogleHeroBoonDogleHero (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a technical finding above. You haven't been sanctioned. If you have a problem with Sundostund, you need to deal with that in the usual ways when editors have disputes at Wikipedia. What you're asking for is not typical at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly - not typical at all, because he just doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. That's why he's adding content without references, copyvio images (some of which are already deleted), etc... He is someone's sock, and its just a matter of time when he'll be blocked indefinitely. --Sundostund (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Bbb23 for the information, greatly appreciate it.BoonDogleHero (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor

How exactly did you determine that Marvellous Spider-Man is not CosmicEmperor despite the amount of evidence which was presented? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

How exactly did you determine that with your weak amount of evidence. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@SheriffIsInTown: I probably wouldn't ask. But really, evidence based on questions 'in the form of a sentence' and 'heavy use of the Teahouse'??? I think they want people to make heavy use of it! Muffled Pocketed 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Your comment is very cheeky. You do not evaluate someone's behavior on a single piece of evidence. You put all pieces of evidence together and then decide whether account belongs to the same person. So you will put teahouse and other pieces of evidence together. As for "the question asked in the form of a sentence". Its one piece of evidence which was added by User: Mike V and it was one of those pieces which compelled him to run a CU which led to block of Greek Legend. Check the prior SPI and you would see what I am talking about. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Nice job on that paid sock farm! Also for all the hard work you put in investigating sock cases in general. Murph9000 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Murph9000.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Davod Farhadi

Hi. You are one if several editors deleting this. Given the similarity of the names I did a quick check but the current IP address hasn't been used by Farhad2010 and CU is too difficult with an iPad which is all I will have for several days until I get a new modem/router. Could you take a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor posted to ani and someone replied with this link showing he's socking elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I finished. The two accounts were obvious. The problem was that there were many, many sleepers. I probably didn't need to block them all, but because I don't know the pattern of this person, I decided to do it. They should all be blocked and tagged now. If there's cross-wiki abuse, you're welcome to look at the possibilty of global blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Guidance please

Is it acceptable to remove red categories from drafts, sandboxes and user namespace articles?Rathfelder (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Rathfelder. Have you even read your own talk page? -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Rathfelder: Does the following text look at all familiar? Disruptive editing: persistent removal of redlinked cats from other users' userpages despite multiple warnings Where have you seen it recently? Murph9000 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I think you're being a bit hard on Rathfelder. First, the block was because of removing redlinks from the userpages themselves, not the other pages he mentions. Second, I commend Rathfelder for asking. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to remove redlinks from drafts, etc. All of those kinds of pages are generally works in progress, and the editor may be planning on creating the redlinked categories and just keeping track of what they want to accomplish. Also, I see no harm in leaving them and potential harm in removing them. I hope that answers your question, Rathfelder.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Rathfelder: If I was too harsh, I apologise for it. Asking before doing is certainly good. Murph9000 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think if they are actively being edited that is perfectly sensible advice, but mostly what I come across are stale. As I have tried to point out before, I have not intentionally reverted anyone's edits, and I don't intend to start now. Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by stale? The age of the draft et al., or the age of the last contribution of any kind by the user?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be saying you did it accidentally. Many times. I for one don't believe you. Once perhaps. Multiple times is just not believeable. I suggest you stop editing user space until you can bring these accidents under control. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.Lee

Oops, didn't tag that I was in progress on that. I know there is one slightly odd result there, if you want to discuss further I'm on gchat right now or you can always email me. Risker (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It didn't take much of my time, and I pretty much agree with you, although I suspect they might be meat.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure it's being discussed *somewhere*, although google translate isn't good enough to be of much help. Risker (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I tried.

Not sure how much plainer I could have been with him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjana67

Hello Bbb23,

Sanjana67 just avoided its block by using an IP from the same network as one of the IPs listed in the investigation (116.68.123.214) (see here). The edit where a prod was removed by that IP has been deleted yesterday along with the article. I bring this to your attention so you can decide if measures should be taken against the IPs. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges

They are commenting on SPI on the basis of their own theorem. See User:Iazyges/SP Theorem. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man (talk · contribs) So? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges: If you want to spend your time creating incomprehensible theorems about socking, that's up to you, but don't inject theorem-related comments into cases. If I see them, as I did just now, I will remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) The theorem is now theoretical  ;) Muffled Pocketed 13:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Lazyges comments: I will be be using my theorem (which is a work in progress) to see how connected the accounts are. The lower the score the more likely it is. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I guess Bbb123 missed one. Anyway, he hasn't done it since being warned (actually, did it really constitute a warning?) so no worries. Muffled Pocketed 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonathanbishop

I didn't want to walk on you, but since it is his real name, I think adding the tag is fine but courtesy blanking afterwards might be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. I didn't agree with the courtesy blanking of his Talk page but chose not to contest it because it wasn't important to me. Tagging him as a sockmaster is important and shouldn't just be in the history, particularly because it wasn't a CU block, although I was tempted to reblock him on that basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I respect that and will leave it as is, with just the talk page courtesy blanked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

UTRS

Hello! When you have a moment or two, could you pop in to take a look at UTRS 16534? There's a possible 'unrelated collateral' request there that you may want to comment on.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I know how to look at these things now (I finally agreed to whatever privacy crap they wanted to enable login), but I have no idea how to use the interface. I just look at what's there. In fact I still haven't figured a way to read entire comments by the reviewers because they are lopped off, but I usually get the gist. Unless someone wants to teach me how to use the stuff, I don't have the energy to figure it out on my own. An alternative would be for Callanecc to e-mail me privately, and then I could answer his questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: SPI

Hi, Bbb23,

When you ran a check on Itsmukeshhere, you blocked Geetha akkihebbal, an obvious COI editor who had been bothering me for weeks, as a sock. I was wondering if you could look at Akkihebbal geetha, who is obviously the same person - although I'm unsure how they did not show up on the check. Thanks for your help.

Regards,

GABgab 15:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Different IP ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thank you. GABgab 15:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Abdollah Movahed is one of Iranian Azerbaijani please Don't Remove His ethnicity Thanks a lot.good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afshar khan (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Bbb23. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi Bbb23. I am an active user from Turkish Wikipedia. An user, User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu contacted me and he told me that he was banned from English Wikipedia because he is a sockpuppet of another user. In this case, some evidences were given. The reason that he did the same changes with User:Selçuk bey that Selçuk bey actually asked for his "help" via his talk page. Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu is quite and active user in Turkish Wikipedia and it is clear that these two accounts are not belonged to the same person. Selçuk bey also sent me a message and wanted my "help or support" on this case, and I made a change on the article that I thought it was right back then. User:Kouhi reverted my change without making any explainations, until I send him a message and ask him the reason. He made me an explaination, I was convinced and that's it. What I ask from you is to remove User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu's block because he is not a puppet. You can also check these two users' contributions in Turkish Wikipedia. Thanks in advance and have a nice day.--Rapsar (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Any appeal of his block will have to come from him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rapsar: I think User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu is still able to edit his talk page. He can ask administrators to unblock his user account by using Template:Unblock. Hope this helps. By the way, his edit pattern was similar to that of Seljuq bey, which led me to think he was also a sockpuppet. Sorry. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know him, I don't know if he can speak English. I've just checked his user page, his English level is intermediate. I only know him by contributions and I am sure that these two accounts are belonged to the same person. You can look at here, messages of User:Selçuk bey on User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu's talk page. User:Kouhi, Turkish Wikipedia is not a big community as English Wikipedia, so we can easily (well, mostly) spot sockpuppets :) And this one is not.--Rapsar (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
And I forgor to say, in User:Murat Güneş Altuntaşoğlu's talk page, User:Selçuk bey says "User:Osman bey is also me"~, which means these to accounts are belonged to the same person.--Rapsar (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You should check his talk page...--Rapsar (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Snapchat

Why did you just revert my edits on Snapchat and why did you call me a sockpuppet—I am not? Castelbuono (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb, the user has come to -help on IRC. Who is the sockmaster? Did you determine that by behavioural evidence? Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy IP-hopping block evader continuing to remove cited material

To recap [52]: You previously blocked the master and the six sockpuppets of Victory Clarion. After the sixth sockpuppet was blocked on August 26, the user has IP-hopped and endlessly repeated the same kind of edits to the article -- general puffery, peacockery, and attempted removal of cited critical information. I've been spending a lot of time cleaning up after every edit the IP hopper makes, which is exhausting. Now they are edit-warring to remove a clearly cited passage that has been in the article for two years. They've been warned on the article's talk page to desist, but they're continuing. The only way to stop the nonsense, edit-warring, and block evasion is to semi-protect the page (which I requested of you on September 1 but you felt it was premature then [53]), hopefully for as long as possible. I'm going to ping Drmies as well, since he reverted the master's similar edit back in June: [54]. Could one of you two please semi-protect the page, for as long as possible? (The last IP edit to the article prior to this IP-hopping COI person was in February 2015, so longterm or even indefinite semi-protection would be fine.) Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Done. Let's see in three months. (Or three months and a day.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

NoCal

Sorry, I was travelling last week, I'll put together the email by tomorrow. nableezy - 05:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sent, sorry for the delay. nableezy - 18:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I didnt get any type of response, even one saying that the evidence is unconvincing. Is there anybody looking at this? nableezy - 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The list is moderated and any e-mail from a non-functionary has to be reviewed by a moderator and then released (or not). Otherwise, the other functionaries, including me, can't see it. I haven't seen anything come through from you yet. The last time you said you were going to e-mail the list, I checked with one of the moderators. I'm not going to that trouble each time because your promises to date have turned out to be unreliable. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but it is annoying. I have other things to do than to make an exception for you simply because you claim you don't have to present evidence. That said, if you want to send me an e-mail, I will look at it, maybe not immediately, but at some point. I won't respond by e-mail (I don't do that). I also reserve the right to say anything publicly I think is acceptable, regardless of your opinions on the matter. If that doesn't suit you, that's your call, but none of this is advancing the principal goal, which is protect the project from disruptive activity.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the past delay, you are right, I should have realized I was not going to have time until the end of the weekend. But I do take issue with one thing, at no time have I ever claimed that I do not have to submit evidence. And some of what is in the email can certainly be shared publicly, but if a long term sockmaster has some specific traits, or tells, why should that be publicly discussed? The only outcome of doing that is that the next sock, and with some users there is always a next sock, will mindfully avoid this tell. I'll send you what I sent to the functionaries list now. nableezy - 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And sent. nableezy - 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Received.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Alumni

Could you link me to the guideline or discussion where the consensus was reached that an article is required to be listed as notable alumni? I read through the Universities project and can't find it. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm impressed. You actually created an article rendering our little "dispute" moot. Commendable. As for your question, every school article I've ever edited (not just universities), experienced editors have taken the same approach I have. That said, I doubt I can find you a consensus you would accept. Even if you hadn't created the article and restored the player, I wouldn't have reverted again. Two reverts is pretty much my limit. After that I either take it to the Talk page or let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A consensus I'd accept? You make this sound like it's some sort of battle. I restored it originally because I've never heard anyone state that it was an accepted convention. So I looked around and couldn't find it. In other articles I have edited, experienced editors, such as you and I, haven't disputed the inclusion of a person who would clearly pass the notability standard (pro athlete, Olympian, politicians of certain levels) as long as it is sourced properly. So I simply asked you where to find that discussion. In the end, this player is probably more notable than a lot of them who have articles. Many are guys who never actually played in a game and this one is not only starting, but is the only player from his school to ever do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stokesnet

On User talk:Mwrcwms, you raised the question, "did I consent to Yamla unblocking Stokesnet?" Looking into the situation, you blocked that user on 2015-07-09. About ten months later, I lifted the block. At the time, I was not aware that checkuser blocks could only be lifted with permission of a checkuser and believed the WP:SO applied in that case. I now understand that we use checkusers to confirm point 1 ("Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion") and in this case, I acted inappropriately. You have my very sincere apology. I should have pinged you to get your opinion. I believe this is the process I've been following for quite some time now, but was not what I did back in May. It won't happen again. I'm very happy to discuss this further if you wish, and will be monitoring your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla for the explanation. This is the first time (that I'm aware of) that any administrator has unblocked an account I CU-blocked, so I have little experience dealing with it. In this instance I'd rather deal with it substantively as opposed to procedurally. I just read the wall of text on Stokesnet's Talk page to refresh my memory about the issues and claims by the editor. Had you asked for my consent to unblock Stokenet, I would have given it, so the outcome would have been the same. I also noticed he's barely touched Wikipedia since being unblocked, so he's hardly had a chance to be disruptive, if we're wrong about him. I have a suggestion, though, which will help avoid your running afoul of any policy in the future. It's generally considered good form to consult with the blocking administrator before unblocking any user. Whether it violates policy not to consult is a gray area because of the way the policy is written. If you had done that in this instance, I would have explained to you that this was a special block subject to CheckUser policy, and you would have learned about the policy earlier, and we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Anyway, bottom line is we're good now, I consider the matter closed, and you can go back to doing the good administrative work I see you do whenever we cross paths. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll follow your advice. Even if policy isn't totally clear here, it's still a good idea; blocking admins often have a fair amount of context for the block which won't fit in the space for the block message, so consultation is a good plan. I do have one question, though. I often lift autoblocks after checking to see if there's any obvious overlap between the targeted account and the autoblocked account, and if the original block wasn't the result of a checkuser block. I claim it's not necessary to consult in that case. The autoblock is limited in duration in any case and it's not at all unusual that innocent users are hit by them. What are your thoughts? And thanks for your kind words. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Many administrators "specialize" in certain areas of the project. IIRC, you handle a lot of unblock requests. Personally, I don't. So, in principle, you probably are more knowledgeable about this than I am. That said, my immediate reaction is to consult, only because using the same IP as a blocked editor, although not necessarily guilty by association, at least raises a suspicion that there is a relationship, and the blocking admin might be able to shed some light on that. Perhaps some of my talk page stalkers have something helpful to say on this subject.
Speaking of stalkers and on a wholly unrelated topic, Drmies, should the username Emmy Expert be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, now I see why--no, not as far as I'm concerned, not for a username violation. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23. I'll stop bothering you now. Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Update you reversed

Greetings, The edits I did to Manuel Pinho’s page did not alter the thrust of the article. The main one was a factual, referenced update on litigation that is now missing and perhaps you would consider making such update yourself. The rest were editorial edits to make the article more concise and clear. I would like you to know that I am a regular Wikipedia contributor with expert input on a couple pages, which could lead Pinho to my real life identity and that’s why I created a separate account to make edits to the page of a powerful, self-serving subject.(Arbitratusrex (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC))

Userpage vandalism

Please see this. It's been moved back, but the user who moved the page is clearly not here. Not sure if a block is the answer, but I have warned them. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Non-administrator comment) Note that the editor, Markkim77, was warned two days ago with a level 3 vandalism warning. The editor who warned them was the same person whose userpage they moved. I'd say give them a "warning shot" block. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Admitted sock of Osman Bey Comment

You recently blocked a pernicious sock master using the name osman bey. He is socking and attempting to meat puppet here. FYI. I am not familar with the ins and outs of SPI so I wasn't sure where to put this. --Adam in MO Talk 00:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Osman bey was confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock of Blahhhas. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, Bbb23. There's an unblock request from an editor you blocked for sockpuppetry back in January, at User talk:Mahveotm. Previous unblock requests were declined by Boing! said Zebedee and Only. Only also suggested WP:Standard offer, and the blocked editor has taken up that suggestion. I am expressing no opinion on whether the account should be unblocked, but perhaps you can have a look at it and give an opinion on whether the editor can now be given a second chance, after eight months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vaishal

Thank you for a swift and thorough response to this SPI. Mehmit and PearBoy19 were both quacking at me, but I didn't want to use a scatter-gun approach and shoot myself in the foot. Appreciate your diligence! Keri (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Finding more context for a block

Hi there,

This concerns User:ZN3ukct, but it's something I've come across and wondered in the past (I don't have examples at the ready and have no idea if you were the blocking admin for those). You blocked as a checkuser block, but there's no incoming link from an SPI page, no tag/message on the user page, nor the talk page. It's just sort of a mystery sock, as far as I can tell. How does a non-admin find out more? There are a number of reasons why the information is useful, but just for example, if it was block/ban evasion, comments might need to be struck and/or edits reverted.

Thanks — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose by asking the blocking admin as you have. However, in many instances, the fact that a CU doesn't tag a block means they don't want to. That's true in this case as well, so I'm afraid I can't satisfy your curiosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to interpret "don't want to". What sorts of reasons are there for not wanting to? Perhaps something along the lines of not disclosing a connection between an IP and an account, or one account with another that disclosed personal information or somesuch? But to be clear, it's not just curiosity -- it's information that affects various processes, discussions, etc. and makes it easier/harder to e.g. identify other socks. I remember at one point looking into possible paid editor socks and coming across one (or more?) such blocks without information that might've connected a couple other accounts, made by an inactive admin. Granted, I'm so unready to provide specifics that you might as well consider this a hypothetical, but ultimately while, yes, most instances can probably be resolved by consulting the blocking admin, it leaves a gap in information that the admin might not remember or be available to provide. But, again, I say that ignorant of reasons for omitting such information. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing that needs to be done because of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Rhododendrites, if there's something sensitive you'd rather not discuss on a talk page (such as sensitive diffs), you can always email Bbb23. That is, if Bbb23 is ok with you emailing them. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh, I don't think it's Rhododendrites who has something sensitive to discuss; it's me. In any event, I don't mind if Rhododendrites e-mails me, but in this case there would be no point.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw phrases like I'm so unready to provide specifics that you might as well consider this a hypothetical and took this to mean they didn't want to publicly discuss the matter in such a public place, but I do see what you mean, Bbb23. And, yes, CUs pretty much can't discuss details of accounts they've blocked that aren't already known publicly (like in an SPI case file or on a talk page, etc.), probably not even with other admins. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can't help but feel a little brushed off here. Again, I'm less concerned with this particular case than how to deal with missing information of this sort and, perhaps more relevant, why such information would be missing to begin with. "Didn't want to" is pretty opaque, and responding to general questions with a specific "nothing more to be done" doesn't make it much clearer :P. I'm not asking for sensitive information here, just the sorts of reasons a tag/SPI wouldn't be there when it would be useful for it to be there. Even "yep, privacy stuff is the reason" give me something to go on. Am I thinking in the wrong direction altogether, and it was actually just a matter of forgetting/not getting around to tagging it? Or perhaps I'm mistaken and it's not even standard to tag socks as such? As I'm asking more about process than this specific case, would you prefer I inquire elsewhere? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I prefer that you not belabor it here. If you want to ask someone else, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:I Love Bridges

Hi Bbb23,

Is there any particular reason why you keep reverting the IP who added the banned and locked templates to the page, and then semi-protected the page from editing? The account is indeed globally locked, and although not formally banned, they are LTA banned. 73.114.22.255 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not the IP's role to tag accounts. In fact, it's not anyone's role except an administrator or member of the SPI team. And you're heading for a block if you continue making the kinds of edits you're making. Nor am I interested in discussing it with you any further.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect page

Hello, Could you possibly delete the redirect talk page: Talk:Acts of Shmona and of Guria and of Habbib. There is no archiving that needs to be saved. It was a move mistake in which I have undone and have only kept the main redirect page associated with this page for alternative spelling. Thank you & Cheers. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reed77

I see you've blocked Warlock for being a sock of Reed77. I've dealt with Warlock for a few weeks and the behavior he has shown in the past few days is identical to the prolific sockmaster The abominable Wiki troll, as you can see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive.LM2000 (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reopened a case at SPI for all accounts involved with Reed and the blankings on this page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@LM2000: Thanks for the heads up. I don't think my Talk page has been that heavily vandalized ever (I was happily asleep). I've had little experience with The abominable Wiki troll, but I believe you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

That 30-account sockfarm must not have been fun to wade through. Thanks for putting up with me! GABgab 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh, can't blame that on you. I blame it on MER-C (), but I've done a lot of checks of MER-C's filings, and I go into it with my eyes wide open.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CraigIsBae2

Thank you. I realized after posting it that it probably didn't warrant a sockpuppet investigation. No response is required. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Beltracchi

I just famousblocked Wolfgang Beltracchi (40 years, Art Forgery) German art forger (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE) but haven't tagged. I see your socktag at his other account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and he's blocked at es.wikipedia and is making edits at lots of languages. Probably lock is needed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I just did that a moment ago. You could tag your puppet as suspected if you like. If you want me to run another check, I can. Ajraddatz is often willing to globally lock without having to request it at meta.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Locked that account and a couple other obvious ones on the same IP :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. The one I blocked is now tagged by me with {{sockpuppet|David Adam Kess|proven}}. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

as always

thank you for your dedicated work JarrahTree 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You've done some good work yourself. :-) Pretty picture on your userpage. Australia is beautiful. Thanks for stopping by.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of cultural heritage sites in Karachi

There's been a lot of activity over there by 11 new accounts, many of which seem to divide into three groups based on edits:

St. Andrew’s/Patrick's Church - [55][56][57]

Sindh Madressatul Islam University - [58][59] (possibly [60], too)

Sea View/Clifton - [61][62][63]

Possibly related:

Note the similar use of images, the time-clustering (most accounts created on the 28th, 29th, and 30th) and how Rabiashahid's alternate account's name is similar to that of Indilamazhar012.

Sorry to bring this up if it seems frivolous, I just noticed that all this disruption had forced the page to be protected. Pinging Saqib. Thanks, GABgab 03:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Please create an SPI. It's too much to handle without a case. You can also self-endorse for a CU if you wish. If you do, let me know when the case is ready for me to look at. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect these are socks. This user uploaded photos to Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan using different account but the pattern of uploads are same. For instance, the file names of uploads to Commons are similar to username. The user uploaded some nice images using different accounts with the hope of winning more than one prizes. I am not sure whether we should delete the image or not but his submissions to WLM are already disqualified. --Saqib (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
OK - I had thought that creating the same SPI for separate sock-groups would be convoluted, but I'll go ahead. GABgab 13:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
    1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
    2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
    3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
  2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
  3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Impersonation

I've put a user impersonation block on Bbb23 73H. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Thanks for the block and the heads up. I suspect I know who it is, but it's not worth confirming now that the account is blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Requesting you to look into this. Mainly used for trolling and WP:CANVASS. Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:JayJasper

Why did you revert me? All the socks are tagged. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 20:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You are neither an administrator nor an SPI clerk. As I did say in my edit summary, it isn't your place to do it. If you wish, you can contact Callanecc and ask him if he wants the userpage tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Special:Contributions/MDNe, Special:Contributions/Enteair, Special:Contributions/Addamchewy, and more 82.132.xx IP range. 115.164.88.208 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cephlopoid

This new user seems to be WP:QUACKing a bit (or at least trolling). It might be worth a quick CU when you have a moment. I don't have another account to link it to, so can't file a SPI case. Murph9000 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For quick work on blocking that guy who vandalized my talk page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof Batman

Who was Bulletproof Batman? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't share that with you, Anna. I can you with a little information, but not the ultimate answer, if you want to e-mail me. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
That's okay then. No worries. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oldest account

Re: this. Sorry, I thought it was the oldest account. Must've got confused. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: You can atone for your sins after I post the findings because some significant behavioral evaluation will be needed, and you're one of the best editors to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If I can sufficiently clear my head of opiate painkillers then I will indeed. I've just spotted Humayun Ahen as another who has recently appeared to edit the tribe article, along with a related article about the source used in it. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations close

I just had a number of editors email me, stating that you closed this case and that they found the action inappropriate. Given what was at stake regarding this case, that you stated above to Markshale that you are "tentatively satisfied you are who you say you are (so to speak)," and given that you and I have had a tempestuous history (as seen here and here, for example), I have to agree that I do not think that it was appropriate for you to close this case. In fact, and I thought you were aware of this, I am not comfortable with you acting in an administrative capacity regarding me. It would have been better had you left it to someone else to close. For example, I had contacted Euryalus, whom I trust, for a second checkuser opinion. As seen with this case you were involved in, where you stated that it was "highly likely" a sock, and a different checkuser stated, "I don't feel the technical evidence really matches up at all. At most, I'd say it's vaguely Possible that you could be the same editor, and that clearly isn't enough to justify a block. Unblocked.", checkusers can have different opinions. Having a second checkuser opinion on a case like the one you just closed should have been a priority.

Furthermore, the technical opinion Johnuniq gave on the matter of fooling the checkuser data is sound. I asked other editors familiar with a lot of the logistics that come with computers and being able to appear as two different people, and their answers were similar to and/or more in depth than Johnuniq's. Those answers were not like the reply that Montanabw gave. From the beginning, you seemed convinced that Markshale is not Tisane, regardless of any behavioral evidence, and that the case should be closed. You seemed annoyed by Montanabw's comment, as though her comment had influenced others supporting me, and you did not answer my question about who the drive-by sock SSP Patrolman (talk · contribs) is. I understand that Ivanvector is probably okay with you having taken matters into your own hands, but I still find the action inappropriate. And as expected, after the close with no block on this account, there is this type of drive-by edit from a throwaway account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Bbb23 replied at User talk:The ed17#Your opinion on declaring WP:INVOLVED. A permalink is here. Again, thank you for replying, Bbb23. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Any connection between the relinked fellow...

...here, and this gentleman? The timing is suggestive, but not conclusive. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative account

Hi. Alternative accounts do not have to be declared when there is a legitimate reason: my laptop is not secure, and it's to protect my privacy. -- Markshale (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see you're a checkuser, and you should be able to verify directly what my main account is: I've edited from the same address on my main account today. I trust you will keperep it private. Flyer22's accusations are completely illegitimate, and I'm really quite offended by them. -- Markshale (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please compare my editing/commenting style with that of my main account. They are identical, and have been so for over a decade. -- Markshale (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: I think it would be easier if you e-mail me the name of your other account. Also, if possible, it would be good for you to e-mail me twice, once from Markshale and once from the other account. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Posting from the laptop again: I don't have e-mail set up on either account, for the aforesaid privacy reasons, and I don;t think I can send you email unless I have one. I have an ancient throwaway email account I once used to communicate with the WMF before that I should be able to use from another laptop; I'll see if I can access it tonight, so I can do so.

I'm very keen to see the back of this nonsense; I know the WMF have logs of many, many things, and a pretty good idea of how you can cross-correlate them, and I have nothing to hide from the WMF in this regard. However, the Internet is full of crazies, and I hope you can see why I'm very, very cautious with revealing my identity -- once leaked, you can never get it back.

I don't bear any animus toward Flyer22 -- who I think I may have interacted with in the past in much more pleasant circumstances -- as I understand that they are clearly very, very upset, and I don't want to know the backstory behind it. But I would at least like a polite acknowledgement that they were, in this case, mistaken.

Also: for future reference, does the WMF/you have a public key, and the ability to use GPG? If that were possible, it would be much easier to send messages privately to checkusers, stewards, etc., without needing to bind an email to an account. -- Markshale (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: I have another idea how to do this. Please edit from your main account using the laptop. If you're unwilling to do that because of your security concern, the main account, if it's who I think it is, has an alternative account with e-mail. That account could send me an e-mail. Another idea is for both you and your main account to set up an e-mail temporarily, send me e-mail from the new accounts, and then get rid of it if for some reason you don't want it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, those are really good ideas. I'll set my main account up on the laptop, and then edit from there using that account. If that's not sufficient, I can try one of the other things. (By the way, I've now managed to gain access to the old email account, although how long the old laptop will hold up for is unknown: you might want to send me email there, and I can pick it up and, say, echo a challenge string you send me back from this account.) Having a back-channel would also let me discuss some other things that might be conceivably be relevant to this matter, although I can't at the moment see how there could practically be any direct link between them. -- Markshale (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Markshale: The edits came through, and I'm tentatively satisfied you are who you say you are (so to speak). Based on that edit, I'm going to take some preliminary action, but it would be helpful to have a private discussion with you before I decide what further action, if any, is needed. Thanks for cooperating.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, you're welcome, I hope you can see now that I am high;y unlikely to be the person on the other side of the SPI: I have a vast edit history of consistent good behavior, from a small number of different IP ranges, with no attempt at concealment of edit style or origin address. At the same time, I'm also aware of the existence of checkuser, and that my edits are available for scrutiny at any time, if such an occasion arises, as it just has.

While I've occasionally used alternate accounts such as this laptop account, their use has been limited to attempting to partition my editing of Wikipedia for anonymity purposes, and I hope has been entirely within policy. Gicen my long editing experience, you might also consider that if I were ever to want to become a bad actor, I wouls have done a much better job of it: I would not have chosen to do so from my own IP address, with my normal editing habits, in a way that could easily be back-traced at any time.

Finally, there's my character overall: I see my Wikipedia editing as part of my life's work., and I hope you can see from my editing history overall that I have invested over a decade of my personal time into trying to make Wikipedia a good place for everyone to edit and read -- how likely is it that I would change so drastically to do something so out of character, or risk my personal reputation and emotional investment doing (hopefully, mostly) good work on Wikipedia in such a way?

Now compare this with Flyer22's purported evidence, which falls apart under close inspection. It consists of (a) a set of editing habits that are as far as I can see almost entirely due to my use of cut-and-paste edit comments and the use of the word "more" in summaries, and (b) that I once disagreed with them about the creation of one article, and then as far as I can see the rest is entirely driven by confirmation bias, and the belief that because they think I'm this person, anything I do, of any sort, is from their viewpoint further evidence that they are right. If I don't respond, it's supposedly evidence of wrongdoing. If I do respond, it's supposedly evidence of wrongdoing. Similarly with changes, or lack of them, in editing style. Or, in one of the most absurd cases, in making redirects. And so on. It's the logic of a witch-hunt. If the witch sinks, she's guilty; if the witch floats she's guilty also.

Sometime a coincidence is a coincidence. The apparent pattern of a large number of interlocking habits are all explained by the cut-and-paste summaries, and the rest are pure chance, and confirmation bias -- and apparently, towering rage and upset, and unwillingness to back down to someone that Flyer22 now wrongly perceives to be their antagonist in disguise -- from then on. With a sufficient number of other editors to scrutinize, and a fiery fervor that you are fighting the good fight, sooner of later someone will fit the bill, and it looks like I'm it.

To sum up: to the best of my knowledge, I've not made any abusive edits using either this or my master account, and Flyer22 has not presented any. There is absolutely no technical, or non-coincidental behavioral evidence that supports Flyer22's accusations, and plenty of technical -- and behavioral, and character -- evidence to show that I am not, to the extent that you can prove a negative. I'd like to think that that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I invite your to review my edits and logged history as much as you like, and ask other checkusers to check your conclusions. I think you will find that the record demonstrates that I am an uninvolved recipient of Flyer22's entirely understandable, but in this case mistaken, efforts to free themselves of this abuser.

I've never been on the end of a witch-hunt before, not have I ever been the subject of someone else's obsession. It's not a pleasant experience.

If you want to send an email to the email address associated with the master account's alternate, I'd be happy to give you some more information that I don't feel comfortable about revealing here; however, it may take quite some time before I'm in a position to reply -- probably late tomorrow.

-- Markshale (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: Apparently I can't e-mail your alternative accounts. I thought because they had a link to send an e-mail, unlike the master account, I could, but when I try it, it says no valid e-mail address has been set up. So, let's please go back to one of my earlier suggestions, which is for you to set up a temporary e-mail address for Wikipedia and e-mail me. I really think it would be helpful if we could continue to discuss this but privately. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks -- I just checked my mail, and didn't see anything from you. I will do that now. I can't tell you how unpleasant it is being dragged into this whole sordid mess. -- Markshale (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for the block

Can we also remove talk page acess for a couple weeks, or more ? thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't revoke Talk page access for longer than the block itself, but I have done that much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What to do when AfDs are discovered to be eligible for speedy deletion?

I discovered a new page called I Want to Live (2015), which I nominated for deletion for the obvious lack of notable content. About half a day later, I discovered that not only was the article creator a sockpuppet of KurdoKardir, but that the article had been deleted just a couple hours earlier, qualifying it for speedy deletion, on the grounds of Wikipedia:G4. With this new knowledge, am I able to bring it up for speedy deletion, or will I have to let the AfD run its course? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, terrific. Now, in future instances, if I discover that a page with an AfD nomination actually qualifies for speedy deletion, should I add a speedy deletion tag on top of it, or simply go to an administrator again to address the problem? I've been here for a long time, but I admit that I wasn't entirely sure about this scenario. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You couldn't have tagged it G5 because the new sock hadn't yet been blocked. You could have tagged it G4, but it might've been a bit confusing. I would have gone to the admin who deleted the article in the first AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well, thankfully you have been one of the involved admins. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir, I have a few new socks awaiting some action, as they're at it again. It probably wasn't even necessary for CU request, given how blatant it is. To quote C-3PO, "Here we go again". DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, meet Soma.farda. He too likes Kurdish cinema. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Met and blocked, along with another account I saw when I checked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, within four minutes of that article losing its semi-protection, they're back from outer space! Some socks that need some folding at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Sockpuppet

Looks like blocked sockpuppet User:Øystein.Eide is back with new account User:Sadashiva23. - Ilber8000 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Tone

It was a mistake and i moved it back. Next time lower your tone. I know my position. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nauriya: I realize it was a mistake, but why did you move it at all?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: When i opened investigation about the suspected sock puppet account last time, Clerk moved it saying that the accused account itself is an suspected sockpuppet for another one. The account i opened investigation for this time belongs to the one the clerk had mentioned but while notifying the suspected user i saw that link in template was red because it wasn't of the same name. Thats why.Nauriya (Rendezvous) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nauriya: If you didn't know before this that you are not permitted to move SPI pages, now you know. Only members of the SPI team are allowed to do that. So I'll repeat myself but a bit more nicely, please don't do it again. If you make a mistake in opening or reopening an SPI, contact a clerk or leave a comment at the SPI itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Janagewen again

1. Could you please semi-protect my talk page for a week or so?

2. I filed an SPI for his latest IP but missed the leading capital - so it's under janagewen rather than Janagewen where it should be. It should be moved, and per the above section, I shouldn't do that. :)

Thanks... Jeh (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije took care of the SPI and I semi-protected your Talk page for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again. Jeh (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser

Could you run a quick checkuser for me, please? I have a probable DUCK sock of an indef blocked user and I need to confirm. The sock is Sjick14, the indef-blocked user is CaptainHog. SPI at the far bottom will have the most current IP and account information, of course. Diannaa usually handles these, but she is offline at the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:57 on 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you check for any sleepers while you are at it and see if a rangeblock is possible? Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:57 on 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I filed an SPI related to the above request. Just letting you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:25 on 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Taken care of by Doug Weller. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted

Hi, I just uploaded my first article about Jennifer Jansch. She is a published author, entrepreneur of a business that exists world wide and founder of 2 major lifestyle magazines in Sweden. What can I do to make the content significant? Because from what I understand, that was the reason for the deletion? Thankful for a response--Jurhammar (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no credible claim of significance. I should have also deleted it per WP:CSD#G11 as it's clearly promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts

Hi, did you have a chance to look at the email I sent? nableezy - 00:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Sorry for the delay. I didn't find the evidence you presented persuasive. I also think it could have - and should have - been presented at the SPI. There's nothing special about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The only part I didnt want to post publicly was the shared trait with past socks. You didnt find it persuasive enough to merit a check, or you didnt find it persuasive enough to merit a block? nableezy - 20:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with your "shared trait" part. I didn't find it persuasive enough to merit a check or a block, but if in the future you post your evidence publicly, as you should, it would probably be someone other than me who would evaluate the behavioral aspect.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine, Ill open a new report. I disagree on what should be public and what shouldnt, considering other CUs have seen this same evidence and agreed it was under WP:BEANS, but its fine with me I suppose. nableezy - 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Socks of MiG29VN?

Hi. As far as you're aware, which other accounts are certain or believed to be socks of MiG29VN? I've looked at this account's SPI archive, and I see you CU'ed a bunch of suspected socks on 27 June 2016 — but although you said several accounts were confirmed to each other, you don't seem to have said they were confirmed to be linked to MiG29VN. Was there something additional, not mentioned in that older SPI, which established that link (or made it likely)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rich, what I did in both the MiG29VN and the Haohaomyy SPIs is pretty common. When I checked the suspected puppets in June 2016, the master was stale. Technically, I couldn't connect any new accounts to the master. So I found that several accounts were socks and the clerk made the behavioral connection and tagged them. When I made the findings in the Haohaomyy SPI, I very carefully said the accounts were likely, not to MiG29VN, but to previous socks. Again, a clerk, or more precisely a clerk-trainee, made the behavioral connection and tagged the accounts as proven socks of MiG29VN. If based on your own analysis you want to challenge GeneralizationsAreBad's analysis, that's up to you. GAB is easy to work with, and the two of you could always compare your reasoning to see why you think the accounts are not connected and why he thinks they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caroline A. Murphy

Thanks for dealing with the case so quickly. Apart from the sock's recreation of Jacob Cass, a blatant continuation of his PR campaign, the socks other articles (Paras Nath Rajwade, Shyam Bihari Jaiswal, & Champa Devi Pawle) look OK and I'm not sure whether to G5 them or not. They're no great masterpieces, but they're not trash either. Other than discouraging puppetry (and I'm fairly convinced that Jacob Cass was the objective of this puppetry) there seems little point deleting them. How do you feel? Regards, Cabayi (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would G5 them, but nothing requires you to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I was on the fence, and discouraging puppetry seems a good enough reason. Thanks for the push. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary

at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nariman.kirgizbaev of doing the filer's job... I filled out the (Twinkle?) drop-down SPI-template as fully as I could but in the course of my research kept on coming up with more possibly-related accounts - I do not remember multiple CheckUser requests being an option on that particular template. Looks like some form of thanks would be in order for your catching of that oversight - in any case, would be great to slow down the master & all the apparent associated puppets for some period of time on all the "Minot Duck/Minot Al Duck/Minot Al Duck Jr/Minot Al Duck Park" creations. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "multiple CheckUser requests". The only real problem with what you did was you didn't list all the suspected puppets in the proper location. If those additional accounts occurred to you later, you just go back in and edit the SPI and add them (in the proper way), along with the evidence in support.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know I could go back in later to fill in all those probable socks & would have been glad to do so but you beat me to it. I guess I am not sure what the intent of your edit summary was - tone of voice is so hard to hear online. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It was crabby and for that I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, muchly appreciated. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock "suspected sockpuppet of Chie One"?

Hey! Thanks for dealing with the SPI the other day.

I was just wondering about formatting following the closing, moving and archiving of an SPI that CU found after the fact to have been mistitled. Currently the (already archived) SPI has me listing Iamboredsenseless and 36hourblock as both being "suspected sockpuppets" of Chie One, but technically I never suspected that. I was 100% certain Iamboredsenseless was somebody's sockpuppet, and had an inkling that it might be 36hourblock.

Would it be possible to add some kind of note to the effect that I had opened the SPI under a different title?

The fact that you moved the page following CU isn't noted anywhere in the archived investigation, and since the archive is a subpage the move isn't even in the page history of the page where it... currently... is... Sorry, couldn't figure out how to word that better.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No note is necessary or even appropriate. The final disposition of the case is normal when there is a change of master. And it can be determined from the revision history if anyone really cares. Don't worry about it. It's certainly no reflection on you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

mail

It might be a messy bit of filing if I put it up now, but it needs to be done... one way or other JarrahTree 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: You'll have to file. I know nothing about these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for even replying - it is a hunch, I'll have to be careful I will have to go back and check the diffs and apparent similarities before I do - thanks again JarrahTree 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CU investigation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares

You may already have noticed it, but Rayan Makkonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed your CUnote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares (diff). —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

vandalism

Greetings,

I recently received a message from this user warning that I have been vandalizing wikipedia. I would like to ask a question. I have been in an "edit war" with someone on a controversial page, which led to the message. The page is about Troy davis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis, an accused murderer who was sentenced to death in the US, even though human rights organizations like Amnesty International claimed the evidence was attained by police coercion. The page is slanted to make it sound as if he is guilty, and I have been continually trying to make the page reflect the serious questions about his trial, only someone keeps changing the page back. I don't know what to do about this, but would like the page to show the serious debate about Mr. Davis's case and doubt about his guilt. Will gladly create an account but don't know how to report the page so that someone can't just keep changing it back. I am not trying to be a vandal :). Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D605:760:F020:D0ED:F159:92ED (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Create an account and discuss your issues with the article on its Talk page. Otherwise, I and others may continue to revert your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I find your standard for what is a "neutral edit" a little harsh. If you read the article as it currently reads, it is not currently neutral, I am displeased that any change I make is immediately removed by you. What would a "neutral change" look like. I stated a fact that groups had raised concerns--how can we make the article reflect those concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgm2016 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We overlapped. I just left you a note at your Talk page explaining to you what you need to do. This discussion does not belong here or at your Talk page but at the Davis Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Leontyne Price

Hi Bbb23,

I know that for some time you've monitored the Leontyne Price article. Would you have any interest in collaborating with me to remove those 3 cite tags there? Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: It's a great idea, but I'm afraid I don't have the time given my extensive administrative activities. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I do understand that time constraints can make this a daunting challenge. But I'd love to see the article upgraded to at least GA status over time. I think it deserves it. But I know that'll be a very long, gradual process. I'll work on it, as time permits. But should you have any time to pop in, even occasionally, please do, and feel free to offer any thoughts, suggestions or other input along the way. I think a major overhaul is long overdue to get it to that level; and as I say, I'd certainly welcome even intermittent help. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares

Another sockpuppet closed the Afd even though it was clearly going toward delete.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_37&oldid=1139201922"