User talk:Bbb23/Archive 42

Help me, I don't know what to do!

Dear Bbb23.

I don't know what to do. It began with an accusation of sock/meat/joe-job to me during the WAM 2017 in which the accuser believed that I was helped by family or friends. I explained that I don't know anything about strange users who appear out of nowhere and have no interest in investigating, but the accuser does not believe in my explanation (he said it quite explicitly that he doesn't believe me), so I chose to remain silent and let the case go.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Then I think I incited anger to the accuser when I tag one of his article with this request for translate tag. The tagging has a guideline which requires me to place another tag on the user's talk page [>subst:uw-notenglish |1=Template:TranslatePassage<]. This tag automatically produces a "text" whose language turns out to be quite extreme in my opinion, it said something about "your article is going to be deleted, etc.". I think this automated tag angered him, and so after reverting all the tags, he began to tag the articles I introduced during the WAM 2017 month for bad grammar and copyright violations. I quickly check and try to reduce perceived plagiarism if apparent, but then he began to ask questions and demand answers from me from something I have no idea what. He even raises the previous sock/meat/joe-job issue again. I felt like being investigated by a police tbh.

Then as I edit the naga morsarang following his remarks and save it, he decided to delete the entire section of the article.

I'm confused and felt quite scared because I try to do whatever he told me to as close as possible to his remarks, but he kept reverting and demanding me to answer questions, and now he deletes a section (for the first time) plus demanding me to answer questions. To be honest, I don't know what to do, because everything that I do or explain seems to be wrong in front of him. I'm very sorry, this is the first time I encounter such conflict after years of peaceful edit with a variety of wiki users that help, teach, and encourage to post lists, etc. I'm not very fluent in Wikipedia guideline. Please guide me through this :(.

(talk page watcher)--@Rochelimit:-Whilst you have done a commendable job at WAM, your's usage of the translate-tag was definitely non-optimal esp. given that you and Hijri were already involved in a SPI and were not getting along very well.We use such tags in specific cases where the entire article or a considerable chunk of it is written in a language other than English.Also, in many of your articles, you seem to have straight-away copied and pasted certain statements from different sources.WP takes copyvio/plagiarism issues very seriously and IMO, it would be highly prudential to re-check all of your articles for such errors and fix them accordingly.Also, I would advise you to double-verify whether your sources support the cited statements, for anything to the contrary even executed with a deluge of good-faith often leads to a lot of problems, given WP's integral dependence on sources. Cheers ! :) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Yes, sorry for not being able to reword the sentences good enough during the WAM sprint/marathon. I guess the intensity of the event makes me careless, to the point that when I thought I already reword the sentences to avoid copyvio, turns out it is not enough. I have to fix this bit by bit. I also try to avoid over-referencing articles with ref tags, but this probably come up as referencing the paragraph wrongly. I have to check this also. btw I already fix some articles as remarked by the accuser, but then as I edit the naga morsarang and save it, the accuser decided to delete the entire section titled "form" out of the article, including parts that have no issue. This left me to this point that I don't know what to do and I don't want to do anything to the naga morsarang article because I'm worried I would start edit-war of reverting, deleting, reverting, deleting, with the accuser. That's why now I'm confused and kinda scared of editing tbh {:( --Rochelimit (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: oh yeah, for the translation, I followed the guideline in here Wikipedia:Template_messages/Translation which mentioned that the Template:TranslatePassage is used to ask translation for a specific passage. That is why I placed a label {{subst:Needtrans |pg=Template:Not English |Language=unknown |Comments= }} to the bottom of the section that needs translation, as provided by the guideline, and only that part.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I posted a couple of responses to both RL and WBOG here, but honestly I'd just prefer to see how this played out. I would, however, much prefer that RL reply to my questions (even just one of them) than go around clumsily attempting to "fix" his plagiarized articles, much of which comes across as his simply trying to cover his tracks. (See, for example this, where he fixed the text I happened to have already tagged, but either didn't understand that he needed to fix everything or was hoping no one would notice that he didn't.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI questions

Could you explain in a little more detail what gave you pause here? To me this looks really obvious. This editor had no fewer than eight similarly named accounts on the go at once a few months ago, so I figured there's probably more of them out there now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I almost never perform a one-account "sleeper" check, and this one didn't justify an exception. The ones blocked in July were ones Katie blocked on her own and were then reported for the record. Not the same as, for example, when someone reopens the SPI with two accounts, and a check turns up several more than just the two listed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess my question then is why do you not perform one-account sleeper checks? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: If you want an answer to your last question, please sign your question properly. I'm a bit neurotic about such things; unless comments are correctly signed, the archive bot won't archive threads.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I hadn't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's okay - just one of my pet peeves. One-account sleeper checks are generally a waste of time as they rarely produce any other accounts. I also don't like the word "sleeper". Most editors use "sleeper" as shorthand for accounts that have no edits (true sleepers) and accounts that have edits but weren't uncovered. I'm much more comfortable blocking the latter than the former because, depending on the circumstances, blocking a true sleeper risks blocking an innocent account as you have no behavior to support the technical data. In this case, I didn't think a "sleeper" check was justified and normally would have declined it. (There's also a third category of sleeper, i.e., an account that edited a long time ago, stopped editing, and then started editing again during the CU data retention period; they slept for a while. Those sleepers, who I think are the rarest, are also easier to block than the no-edit accounts because you have behavior.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It surprises that checking a single account would be so ineffective, but not checking them makes sense since that's case. For what it's worth, I don't much care the word sleeper myself, but it seems to be the widely accepted term, so I go with it in the interest being understood. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

LazyChkUser and HolyChkUsr

It may be a familiar type of vandalism and sockpuppetry to you. I haven't seen it before (messing with sockpuppet cases). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sock block from other wikipedia version

Hi Bbb23, it seems user UzbekRU who has become active on EN Wikipedia recently was blocked on RU Wikipedia as sock of user ZOKIDIN. ZOKIDIN at the same time was blocked on EN Wikipedia [1] following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. I'm wondering if UzbekRU should also be blocked on EN Wikipedia. All the best, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Based on the technical data, this user would probably only be blocked based on behavior. Regardless of the history of the account at ru-wiki, if you believe there is behavioral evidence linking the user to the master or other blocked socks, please reopen the SPI so your evidence may be evaluated. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems PlyrStar93 just beat me to it. I guess it'll be taken from there... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yacoub Shaheen

May I ask you something? You deleted the whole article of Yacoub Shaheen in March because it was created by a sock puppet, but is there any way to review the deletion and return the page? I am mainly working in the Japanese Wikipedia, and the Japanese article ja:ヤクーブ・シャヒーン was translated from the English article Yacoub Shaheen, which was a proper article when it was translated. Now the English articles is gone, and it is impossible to see where the Japanese article comes from.

And if we translate the Japanese article of Yacoub Shaheen into English and upload it as an English Wikipedia article, does the English Wikipedia regard the new article as a page created by a sock puppet, because the original version was translated from the article created by a sock puppet? --saebou (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

First, any editor can recreate an article that was deleted per G5 as long as that editor is not a blocked sock. Obviously, the article shouldn't be recreated unless the subject is notable per our notability guidelines. Second, if the article on ja.wiki was translated from English to Japanese, couldn't you translate it back to English? That said, if it will help you, I can restore the article to your userspace and you can do what you want with it, including moving it into mainspace if you think it's ready. Let me know what you wish me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on João Vale e Azevedo (again)

Please block 212.243.217.45 (talk · contribs) again. Another IP address was used by the same blocked editor: 193.83.9.5 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The 212. IP and one other IP have made only one edit each. If the disruption continues, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing. SLBedit (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

78.141.189.1 is the same person as 81.12.209.58. SLBedit (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Continued harassment

Hi, since you blocked the Israelpetersen account, you should be aware there is another account spouting the same nonsense, now on my talk page, and using the same name as a Reddit user at WikiInAction libeling me and other editors. Also pinging Oshwah, who performed a rangeblock earlier today for what is almost certainly the same individual. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The other account is blocked. I also suspect that Elektricity is another account as well. See the editing behaviors at EU Business School - perfect timeline, same use of edit summaries, and same removals. It's like the person put down one account and immediately picked up the other to resume... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the fast response Oshwah, thanks much. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to help lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's still happening, again from an IP address with a suspicious history, and now on the article Hilary Rosen, a client of mine last year. This time, the tactic is adding warning templates to the top of the article. Some more context: in April, the now-blocked user Inlinetext abruptly deleted significant content on this page, and I believe the same person is behind all of these accounts. Like all of these pages I worked on (FWIW, EU Business School is not one) I have never once made a direct mainspace edit to Ms. Rosen's article, instead any changes I've suggested were implemented by volunteer editors. These two tags, one of which is barely a week old, are being used as a "scarlet letter", in the words of Cullen328. Is this enough for the IP to be blocked? Will someone consider removing the templates? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Central Dibs

Central Dibs (talk · contribs) was reported at AIV as a block-evading sock of User:Albagobragh. The connection seemed reasonable to me, per WP:DUCK, so I blocked. Central Dibs is now asking to be unblocked, claiming not to be related to Albagobragh. Since you checkusered and blocked Albagobragh, I thought maybe you could shed a little light here. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Central Dibs appears to be  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles being used to build up user rights

Hi Bbb23, I have a suspicion that a certain article is being used by a content farm to build up new users so that they get editing credibility and the right to create articles. Obviously this does not fit immediately into categories to raise a sockpuppetry investigation as there is no tangible evidence. The article in question is for Merz Akademie. This is a tiny arts college in Germany, yet the article on EN wiki has gained almost as many edits in the last year as the (native language) German article has in the last 10+ years. What sticks out is that many new editors seem to have chosen this one for their very first or one of the very first edits, often just tiny formatting or wording changes. This strikes me as very odd. Would this be something of interest do see if there is any connection between the users? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at this and then contact Zzuuzz to see what they think.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi I have a question about the investigation. That I am in conflict with the contributor does not contradict the fact that there is evidence that they can be the same person. What should I doing ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Work on the content dispute and not file cases at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

But why ? The "coincidence" is disturbing and it is possible that it is true. And it is not egalitarian for a debate that a contributor can possibly express himself twice. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Thank you for quickly handling my request at WP:SPI. Hrodvarsson (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the same case, an IP editor has appeared on Eoin O'Duffy (not to make the same edit but minor POV and adding spelling errors) and has also edited Rank-Raglan mythotype, making an identical edit as Apollo The Logician made. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Bbb23, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

AN/I section you may want to post in

I was just writing to GodwinCollins when I saw you'd indeffed them as a sock. There's an AN/I section about them where I'm the only responder so far; you may want to point out my folly tehre to make the OP feel better—they happened to use as their example someone who is relatively clearly notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: You're a thoughtful person. Done. BTW, although you can't see them, many of the articles created by GC were speedied under G12 and/or A7. Good luck improving any articles worth saving.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellis and Eastern Company: Work

Before I say anything, Happy Holidays.

About six months ago the page i created, Ellis and Eastern Company, was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted. I have learned alot in 6 months, and i have been editing various pages, and today i checked my talk page and saw the deletion talk still there. I ask that if it is possible, a copy of Ellis and Eastern Company be sent to me so that i may work on it and add references, and making it creditable. I will make it much better than when i made it six months ago, when i had no idea what i was doing. I will respond on my talk page once you can respond back to this message. Thanks, xXCooksterXx XXCooksterXx (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I moved it to User:XXCooksterXx/Ellis and Eastern Company.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalmanManila

Hi Bbb23. Regarding the SPI, we missed the account of Reign05 who is more likely turned up as another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila, as shown in his/her edit here and here. (N0n3up (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC))

That account is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User Redirecting his page to yours, update: this issue has been resolved

A user named Bbb23 smells like armpit and bullies innocent people has redirected his User Page to yours. If this other account belongs to you, then please (of course) disregard this notice and delete it or whatever. But I just wanted to let you know. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Bbb23!!


Hi Bbb23, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

	Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018! – GSS (talk|c|em) 18:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response

Thank you for the quick review of the Sock-puppet case. I appreciate that. Krj373 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373-NR (talk • contribs)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hey

Merry Christmas, Bbb. I hope you got really nice, lovely, cool things from Santa Claus. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Something fishy

I wonder if you've got the time to look at this AfD? There's something damn funny going on...Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I do apologise, I just saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikon. Never mind. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your tireless work at SPI and in particular your detection of the long term abusive socking by Trampton. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, I'm not easily shocked. But this one was a bolt from the blue. Good job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thanks. I think it took a lot of people by surprise.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Trampton

I did not expect that! Guy (Help!) 15:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is going to be the topic of conversation at the WP:Water cooler for the next day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 21:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Question about sock cleanup

Hi, Bbb23. Thanks for discovering and dealing with the sockpuppetry. As I noted on the SPI, I'm quite shocked. I would never have guessed that ST was part of this. I'm wondering what should be done about AfDs like this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken. All three sock's !voted in favor of deletion, which was the ultimate outcome, and the socks had a significant impact on the outcome of the AfD. I'm pinging @Spartaz:, the closing admin, as it only seems fair to ask for his feedback as well, but I'm concerned that there might be a fair amount of cleaning up left to be done. Who knows how many other AfDs have been corruptly influenced by these socks? Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Lepricavark: It's really up to the closing administrator what to do, if anything, not to me. If you run Editor Interaction Analyser, you'll see the other AfDs in which votes were shared.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I'll try to remember to check the analyzer soon, but going through HYYY's recent contribs I didn't see many overlaps and I don't think there's much we can do about older ones. HYYY has only been around for two months and only actively editing since the start of this month, but I haven't examined Trampton's older contribs. The part that galls me is that ST has been a sock for the whole nine years and nearly 200K edits of his career. I wonder why he decided to get so careless this month. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark That's not really the case. Both Trampton and HYYY started back to editing at about the same time - it appears Trampton was a previous account of ST, and they did not edit at the same time before the past two months. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We can’t allow tainted discussions to stand. I reversed the close. If we have a bunch of these let me know and I’ll arrange to get them undone Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

user interaction suggests that this is the only other deleted article. I have asked Sandstein the deleting admin to review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have renominated both of them. I was the original nominator for the one that Spartaz closed as delete. I think immediate renomination is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances despite the closing being changed to keep rather than no consensus. In general think it possible that more people were disinclined to say keep after the ST's usual poorly expressed arguments as influenced by it. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nominations. As I feared, the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused a reaction against even the correct views they might have been expressing. I hope the change is just temporary, and we return to our usual attitude towards NOT ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

A11

Hey there, I noticed you declined the speedy on Chulbul Pandey(Film) as not being promotional but it was actually A11 (made up) and it appears it may be correct. Just thought I'd drop you a line. :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Not quite awake yet and screwed up. Now deleted. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI case/Seth.cocoran

Hey Bbb23. I was reviewing the now-closed SPI case involving the above said user, and I noticed that one of the accounts involved in the investigation was tagged was not related. I'm curious how this is, seeing how "GOAT" is a reoccurring theme in names of the sock farm. As well as that, the only edit of this account falls in line with the behavior of all the other socks related to the SPI case. Perhaps an error was made in this case? Thank you for taking the time to read this, and in advanced in for your response. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No mistake. GOAT is apparently also a "recurring theme" in discussions about Pippen. Therefore, it isn't surprising that unrelated users pick GOAT to be part of their username.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets for Louisiana-Lafayette

Hey Bbb23, I along a couple of others have very high suspicions of at least seven (7) accounts that could very well be socks at Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns. Would you mind checking them if I list them here or would you rather me take it to WP:SPI? I haven't done a SPI request before (that I can remember) and have always just gone straight to the administrators. Thanks, Corky 16:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Given the number you suspect, opening a case at SPI would be best. Try it - you'll hate it. :-) Seriously, if you need help, let me or an SPI clerk know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

lol Thanks, I'll give it a shot... in attempting to grab diffs, I've found more suspected users... sigh... Corky 16:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope I did this right... do the suspected users need notified? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Louisiana84 Corky 17:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it! Happy New Year! Corky 17:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

IP again

Hi, as per the sockpuppet investigation I opened, the IP has again begun unpiping the FC out of several articles. If you have time, could you look into it for me, thanks. -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorted now-- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

My official response to the sockpuppet investigation:The evidence that was used against me was purely coincidental. I undid the deletion of the section a user submitted because I felt that Jim from idegon made a legitimate addition to the Frederick Douglass high school (Lexington Kentucky) article and I had something else to add. Instead of copy and pasting (as this would be plagiarism) I simply reverted the edit and added what I wanted to add.
Is there any way I can prove my innocence? This block being on my record is hindering my attempts to become a better editor. It is also hindering my attempts to request more rights.Ral 33 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Stephen Vince Cox

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User Eeriyaka/ RajithcAlwis

Hi, I am regret to inform you that you have mistakenly recognised both of my accounts eeriryaka/ rajithcalwis for sockpuppet. I joined wiki in 2006/2005. I never ever involved in sock puppet or meatpuppet. my original account is rajithcalwis with my real name since I created the article for Sri Lanka Army in 2006 I had threatening emails. due to that, i created this account eeriyaka. I was not able to declare these accounts due to security reason. but as i remember in 2012 i declared it. and what is the best way to declare it? sorry, i wasn't aware. about that barnstar, it was mistakenly added to one of the accounts but that was removed after i was aware of it. what I want to say I am genuine and loyal wiki editor. I left that conversation about Adams peak on 18th December 2017. I came back after Christmas break noticing that my both accounts being blocked. please advise me on this issue. thanks This Eeriyaka1 account is created to communicate this issue. i hope i am doing the right thing. Eeriyaka1 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Max Arosev

Thanks for the block, I had been thinking it was him for a bit but was still gathering evidence. Since you blocked him two IPs showed up and reverted the edits of his I reverted. I am guessing they are quacking like a duck, I would block them myself but since I had been reported to ANI by him I am probably considered involved. Not sure it is worth opening a SSI page for it but I can if you think I should. The IPs are 213.225.15.15 & 185.69.239.33. Anyway thought I would let you know. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Although it's your decision, I don't think you're involved just because a sock reported you to ANI. In addition, you've blocked named socks before. As a CheckUser, I don't like getting too deeply into IPs; I'd rather let other admins block them. If the two IPs you noted were attacking one article, I'd just semi-protect it, but they're attacking many, so the only effective remedy is a block. I should tell you this may be an ongoing issue because the master uses IPs a fair amount, and he switches to different ones so the disruption doesn't last that long with any given IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool yeah, that makes sense. Was mostly just posting for your views on things. Thanks! -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

History of Maryland

Heads up, there are two probable socks who just edited History of Maryland. 2602:306:3357:BA0:496B:ACF6:90B7:574C (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dealt with. GAB^gab 19:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Men's rights article probation (portions)

Template:Men's rights article probation (portions) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Recreated G5

I'm not very up to date on all the current SPIs, but I thought I should let you know that a G5 you recently deleted (Draft:Indoo.rs) has been recreated by User:Gibbsyerna SeraphWiki (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@SeraphWiki: I can't find the version I deleted. It's not in the history, which would be visible to admins. Where did you find it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It was deleted as Indoo.rs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much. Sock begone + one more.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Oshwah blocked [this account for a username violation, but it seems fairly clear that it's a sock. Could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We get these kinds of accounts occasionally, and there's usually no need to do anything but block them, but, in any event, another CheckUser already checked; one's enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know it had already been checked; is that in the CU logs, which I cannot see? Thanks anyways. Vanamonde (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with an editor

Hi Would you let me know if the draft:indoo.rs page was taken down due to content problems or due to an editor issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickStein (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was created by a sock puppet. What's your interest in the company?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user needs talk page access revoked

Stephen Vince Cox, a user you have blocked, is back at it again, recreated his talk page to add unsourced things about Vince Cox such as this, a very blatant violation of WP:BLP. It might be wise to delete the talk page and revoke talk page access. SkyWarrior 23:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. SkyWarrior 23:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

HailesG's socks

Hey Bbb23. Check out this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HailesG). Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, GeneralizationsAreBad took care of HailesG's case.

If you have some time. There is three ips ([2], [3] and [4]). They all are from Saudi Arabia, and I suspect they are the same person. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything about these three ip adresses? -Aṭlas (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo

The troublemaker is back as 79.168.208.81 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thepoliticsexpert

Looking at PhilipKane's edit history, I suspect Thepoliticsexpert/ Davidjones202 is back with this edit to an article I have previously edited. He is certainly not "a Director of House of Fraser" or a "well respected user of Wikipedia" as claimed on his user page, but he has claimed Thepoliticsexpert's upload as his own work. 2.25.221.187 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Right again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Stephen Vince Coxxx

You may wish to revoke talk page access - including the socks.--Cahk (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock

I think Special:Contributions/Villagegreen347 is a Mrwallace05 sock. Could you look into this? It seems obvious now. 183.171.181.125 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes and many others. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock or run-of-the-mill UPE?

Hi Bbb23. I wasn't sure if this was worthy of WP:SPI so I thought you might be able to help.

Emma Harbonnier was warned by me about undisclosed paid editing for her creation of the deleted article CORYS. She never provided any disclosure. Now a newer user, Emma-Harb has appeared and edited the article Ralf Gathmann, a BLP of a person connected to this company.

A simple search will show that this person is employed by this company and the UPE concerns are well founded. It is also worth noting that both accounts were blocked at French Wikipedia for UPE: fr:Discussion utilisateur:Emma Harbonnier, fr:Discussion utilisateur:Emma-Harb.

My question is, is this a case of sockpuppetry? The usernames and editing patterns are a pretty strong indication that this is the same person. Or should they be treated as two separate cases of undisclosed paid editing? The admins at fr-wiki never mentioned anything about socking in their blocks, but maybe they apply their policy differently (which is fr:WP:FN, by the way... they call it "faux-nez", or "false nose"). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310: It's pretty obviously socking, but I'm not sure I'd do anything at this point. One of the accounts is stale, and the other hasn't edited in a bit over a month. You can still file it if you wish, though. Blocks for 9999999 days??--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's unlikely anything is actionable, then I won't clutter up SPI. I'll keep an eye on the newer account and slap {{uw-paid2}} on them if necessary.

I guess they roll a bit differently at fr-wiki. I guess after 27397.25753 years, they don't care if the account resumes editing! :-) --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of some sentences in American courts, e.g., 350 years to life.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Failed ping,

I'm afraid, but I mentioned you here. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You could have fixed the ping by re-signing after you corrected my and Rob's usernames. That aside, I don't follow why you pinged me or your explanation for the speedy keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)As far as I guess, You/Rob could run a CU on the bad-faith nominator and......Winged Blades^Godric 15:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock query

Hi, Bbb. Is MiloY a sock of Hidden Tempo? They talk the talk. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC).

Strange account - advice please?

Hi, I would greatly appreciate it if you could give me some advice here. I've noticed this new account called Safe My Edit, (I'm not linking to their user page, because I don't think I should ping them) which is acting suspiciously. Their first edits were to create their user and talk pages, setting up automatic archiving, then they proceeded to configure their common.js and .css pages. After that, they jumped straight into highly technical, specialised areas, using templates and a tool which no real newbie would know exists or how to use–I've been active here as an IP for about a year now, and half of these I had no idea about.

When politely asked on their talk page to explain their strange proficiency, they have been evasive, simply saying that they have no previous account here on the English Wikipedia. When confronted about this evasiveness, they accused the user who did so of harassing them! I find it difficult to assume good faith here, why would they be so evasive unless they were trying to hide something? Are these valid grounds to request CheckUser? QuietOwl (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

LauraGoldstein67

Thanks for this. I have been trying to work out for a couple of weeks whether this is the same person who has been POV-warring over Chutiya articles for many months, and it looks like it is. I don't know enough about the history fo the region to reliably distinguish between good faith poor English and POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Cskamoscow100

he is very busy again at Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics. Can we get that page protected possibly, or direct me as to how to ask for that at the proper place. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

What took you so long to check if that was another of Ryan kirkpatrick's socks? That SPI was open for 30 minutes! ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for checking...

...re: Panix comics being a sockpuppet. That never occurred to me. But like the end of a great novel, that development was both unexpected and, in retrospect, makes perfect sense. You went above and beyond, and I thank you.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

PinkbubblegumCharlotte - see diff. MariaJaydHicky has been persistently trying to add Contemporary R&B as a genre. Soft pop (talk)

@Soft pop: Blocked + two others. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking

Thanks for looking over my sock notice, sorry I didn't have enough to support adequately. besieged^talk 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Besieged: There's nothing to be sorry about. You presented enough evidence to justify a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet inquirey

I admit that I didn't handle this well. When I edited anything related to the Washington Huskies football pages I backed it up with sources from the University of Washington website. But then my edits were changed almost right after. I then read the guidelines on editing and posting sources. I posted the source and an email I received from the Athletic Department of the University of Washington. How much more do I have to go? sullivan9211 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (CST)

• Please try WP:SECONDARY. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can a blocked user edit their own talk page?

I have somewhat of a dilemma. A recently blocked user made edits to Reed–Solomon_error_correction back in Feb 2013, Mar 2013, and April 2013, which I believe to be in error. Link to difference to show the Feb 2013 edit:

Feb 2013 edit.

Note that the edits were later marked as "citation needed".

I'd like to get feedback or an explanation for the claims made in the edit, but if a blocked user can't edit their own talk page in order to reply, then there's no way for me to get the feedback I'm looking for. Rcgldr (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Blocked users can edit their own talk pages by default, unless that access has also been blocked, which is rare. The user in question has not had talk page access revoked. However, blocked users are only supposed to edit their talk pages for the purpose of responding to their block, not for answering questions or proposing changes to the encyclopedia, and misusing a talk page while blocked is grounds for having talk page access revoked. So ... I don't know, you might be out of luck. But if the info you're questioning was not cited to a reliable source and you can't verify it now, you're allowed to remove it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Until you replied, I was unaware that blocked users are only supposed to respond to block related questions, which is why I only asked if a blocked user could edit their own talk page, not if there was some caveat as to what such a user could edit on their own talk page, since I wasn't expecting any caveats in this situation. Perhaps this could be clarified in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, since the restrictions on talk page editing weren't clear to me. I've since deleted that section, since I don't want to create any further issues. As for the edit, it needed further clarification, and although both I and the editor understand the issue, I removed it for now as finding a citable source will be difficult since the edit is an explanation of why a method can't be used in a specific situation (although it can be used in other situations), since most citable sources are only going to describe methods that do work in specific situations. Rcgldr (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Rcgldr, as with most things on Wikipedia, "blocked users are only supposed to edit their talk pages for the purpose of responding to their block" is tempered by common sense. We often "look the other way" if an editor is doing something productive on their talk page, unrelated to what they were blocked for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI stuff

Regarding your closing comments here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XJJRosebrook, is the idea that one should not request checkuser when there's an IP involved for privacy? If so, I'll make sure not to check that box in the future. Alephb (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just looked at the section immediately above mine, and it answers my question. By bad. Alephb (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I messaged you at User talk:Bbb23/Archive 40#Enquiry (no urgency, TPS) back in April. As I mentioned in that message, I am on/off Wiki and went off abruptly for a few months, so now catching up. Thanks for your response.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More Padma

Hi B, could I please trouble you to look for any more accounts. Padma popped up again here. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Jowlspolo (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Socks

Hi. Thanks for your work on that. Personally, I was a bit shocked to see them all lead back to BlackJack's account. Hey ho. And I've fixed that comment on the AfD too. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Please accept this small token of appreciation from a Pakistani for your tireless work as an active and diligent CU - though my CU requests are often declined. Keep it up! Your effort are very much appreciated and acknowledged! Saqib (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but the best thing you can do for me is to remember one simple rule: when the only suspected puppets are IPs, don't request a CU. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well noted. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

BBb, If not CU, where else should I report an IP address user who has been socking? The sock of MALIK STAR is back with yet another IP 39.53.108.246 (talk · contribs). --Saqib (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You can always report a suspected sock IP to SPI. You just can't request a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well noted. The IP has been blocked for now. --Saqib (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In the middle of clerking a difficult case request...

...thanks for a laugh. GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: My pleasure, but I'm not sure anyone else appreciated it. --Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nine years of editing

Hey, Bbb23. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet incident

Bbb23, due to technical issues I believe you think you answered my question but you did not and then marked my 2nd response as “duplicate.” So my question is, how do I get this sockpuppet investigation/accusation removed from my record because it is putting a scar on my name? How do I prove I am not “Jim from idgeon”Ral 33 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't. You've had your say. Please move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Understandable have a nice day. Ral 33 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The return of the Socks.

Hello, again banned Socks User:Hakan3400, User:Türk260000 have returned with a new sock account; User:Hakan2600000. He is reverting Turkish related articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have’t been in an edit war and I canceled my edit back hours ago (see Syrian civil war casualties page). The user Mr.User200 that reported me didn’t even warn me and I didn’t edit war against him. I’am new there and requested an account from Wikipedia recently on which they allowed me to do so. Hakan2600000 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

[I] requested an account from Wikipedia recently on which they allowed me to do so. I assume that he is referring to ACC allowing him to create an account. While he did submit multiple requests, ACC did not create the account. Now we know, KrakatoaKatie. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Are you reorganizing my Talk page? I need to hire you as my personal assistant. Not much money but think of the prestige!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I can't help myself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Atomic Meltdown SPI

No, not joking. He edited several times yesterday and several days before. 2015? Where did you get that? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

My error - I must have been looking at an old case and copied the wrong IP for the first of the four. Did you take time to look at the other three? Or the diffs? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You added the other IPs after I closed it; how could I have looked at them? Also, when you do that, the easiest thing is to ping me at the SPI. I've reopened it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize the SPI was closed when I added the other IPs. Again, my error. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Could you please check out this range (Special:Contributions/139.99.169.0/21)? Exhibiting more of the same behavior as other proxies abused by Apollo The Logician. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I took the easy way out and blocked the range as a webhost. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A question

Hello, Bbb23. You may remember me from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator, back in 2014. There's a question I'd like to ask you: as an editor with blocked sockpuppets, can I still arrange to have my username changed through the usual procedure at WP:CHUS? I ask because someone might reason that a change of username would obscure the connection between my current, active account and my blocked socks (which are tagged with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FreeKnowledgeCreator), and disallow it for that reason. In your judgment, would that be a reason for disallowing a change of username or not? Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be better to ask a renamer, but I'm pretty sure there's no policy prohibiting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarsLovesDogs

I'm sure if I went back and read your application for adminship, it said nothing about dismissing hard-working editors who spend far too much time trying to keep crap off this project. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

With this edit, you removed a caution I had left on a user's talk page, with the edit summary "remove COI section as unwarranted". I disagree. Per WP:TPO, please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and don't restore it. That was an administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing good faith edits from talk pages is not listed as an administrator's ability at WP:ADMIN. In fact, WP:ADMINCOND specifically states "administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities". Again, please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's important that I understand your reason for making this edit, which means you need to respond. Perhaps I am missing something. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At the SPI I explained why I was closing the report, and I wasn't being dismissive, just stating what I thought was going on. At the editor's Talk page, my edit summary said why I removed the COI tag - it was unwarranted. At the risk of being repetitive, the editor is trying to do the best they can as a student involved in a Wiki Education project. They responded very civilly to your comments. I've contacted the Wiki Ed coordinator, as I said you could do, and they are going to reach out to the professor, I assume to assist the student. There's no justification or point to plastering templates on the student's Talk page. And I'm not diminishing your work at Wikipedia. It's obvious you work hard, and I'm not questioning your motives; I just think in this instance you're wrong. I can't think of anything else to say, so I hope this more detailed explanation satisfies you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The student editor was adding poorly-sourced promotional edits about their university and some non-notable professors. There was addition discussion and an offer to help on my talk page. When I cautioned them about their conflict of interest, they opened a new account (the sock I reported). I also left User:ActionableIdeas, the course director, a caution about paid editing. The articles are in my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out. Thank you for responding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

As the instructor for this course, I am working with a number of students who are learning about Wikipedia and research practices. The student received some bad advice from a non-Wikipedian. This incident is an excellent teachable moment. We all want to improve Wikipedia, and I want to improve my student's knowledge and skills. --ActionableIdeas (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Hakan2600000

Hello, I believe an editor (Hakan2600000) you recently blocked for sock-puppetry has again created a new account under the name Morhat26000. Hakan recently wrote to me via Wikipedia's email system requesting to make some changes which I thought were unreliable/not verifiable. Now, the newly created account of Morhat26000 has made an edit request on the talk page of the protected article Turkish military operation in Afrin. The edit request is virtually the same one Hakan sent to me via email and the article is the same one on where Hakan made several reverts and unsourced edits before being blocked. I believe a check is needed to see if this is the same person. EkoGraf (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No check needed. Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As soon as the article I mentioned became unprotected today a newly-created account made an edit (his first one) that is not per the cited sources (or rather he is removing cited information) and these actions are virtually the same change Hakan had been requesting be made. Due to this pattern I believe its him again and due to this a longer protection of the article would be required. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sersindaer, but I don't think there's been enough socking at the article for long enough to justify protection. However, you can always request it at WP:RFPP if you think that in addition to the socking the pattern of disruption warrants protection. As for me, if the socking continues (notifying me here is fine), I'll reconsider.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will think about putting in a request. As for the socking, thank you for the help, I will let you know if he shows up again. EkoGraf (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Diabedia

Hey,

It's a little outside my normal sphere of work, but since you were the last person to block Diabedia socks, I thought you might want to know: this IP looks like it's the same user: User:193.198.212.111. Alephb (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

re: User:JMR raggster

Good day sir. Would it be possible to lift the block on User:JMR raggster? I assure you that he will turn out to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. It just so happened that his first edit on Wikipedia turned out to be a meat-puppet like edit. Over a week has now passed, and don't you think an indefinite block is a bit harsh for a new Wikipedia user? Regards, -Object404 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't know how to talk for himself?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

He did, and he sent an e-mail to Arbcom, but it's been over a week and he hasn't gotten a reply. He can't contact you either since he's blocked from editing outside of his talk page, and the admin he appealed to said you weren't inclined to life the block on his account, so the appeal to lift his account was declined. That's why I'm asking on his behalf. All the best, -Object404 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, the message about you not being inclined to lift the block was on my talk page, not JMR raggster's. Anyway, would be much appreciated if you can do give his case a review as a lifetime block for a new Wikipedia user is a bit harsh. -Object404 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

He should wait to hear from ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks. If he still has not gotten a reply after another week has passed, I'll ping you again as it is unlikely they will reply if that is the case. (they replied to me pretty fast by comparison). Is that okay? -Object404 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as your friend is blocked, he can't post on my Talk page. However, he has access to his Talk page, and he can say whatever he wants to there. He can also ping me from there. That would be better than your continuing to act as his representative.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your assistance in the accusations of my potential sockpuppetry, and for your help with the duplicate user page. I'm a little out of practice, and I probably could have handled better, but I appreciate your neutrality, even before I chimed in. The aggressive behavior on display is exactly the kind of behavior I try to avoid inciting (and which unfortunately intimidates and drives away many new editors). Going to try not to react to the other comments there... - AnitaConchita (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hack attempts

Hello Bbb23. Is there any way of identifying the IP of failed login attempts? There were seven failed attempts to login to my account yesterday evening and I'm fairly sure it was either another Wikipedia editor or someone acting on their behalf (it was midway through a quite acrimonious dispute which involved quite a few toys being chucked out of the pram on-wiki by the editor, who has previously recruited a meatpuppet during a previous dispute on exactly the same topic – you ended up blocking the meatpuppet for socking after they created an account with a very similar name to my own (User:57number)).

If not, do you think this is worth taking to ANI without any hard evidence? Not sure whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient, but trying to hack or get an admin's account hacked seems quite a serious issue and makes me quite concerned about the conduct of said user beyond their poor on-wiki showing. Cheers, Number 57 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(tps) Unfortunately, there isn't a way to identify where the failed login attempts originated, even using extra tools. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD. Any opinion on whether this should go any further? Number 57 22:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's of any comfort to you, I too have had failed login attempts, and I don't like the fact that one, including CheckUsers, cannot pinpoint the origin of the attempt. AFAIK, there is nothing to be done but make sure you're sufficiently protected from users (not necessarily hackers) trying to log in as you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, what he said. Just make sure that you're using a strong password. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) I'm surprised that it's not possible to know the addresses of failed login attempts (it's technically trivial to get). {{Committed identity}} could potentially be useful: in case of account compromise, it would be possible to convince a bureaucrat, etc, that you really are who you claim to be when requesting to recover the account (and rights). —PaleoNeonate – 05:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought there was some discussion in technical circles about making this a reality. Forget where, though... GAB^gab 00:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help

Hello Bbb23, I need you help in sockmaster Ashutosh1010’s edit on Ek Mulaqat. The show was running on DD National till 2015 and then it stoped, now If you look at this edit by Ashutosh1010 he actually claimed (unsourced) that the show is now running on their website and on Youtube channel which I feel is now a completely different show under same name and hosted by the same person who started his own news website after DD National stopped telecasting the show Ek Mulaqat and I feel it should have a separate article so can you please take a look and suggest if it can be rolled back where it was earlier. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's now a redirect. If you disagree with that change, you should discuss it on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you also please look at this IP 47.30.184.244/111.112 geolocated Delhi made his first ever edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite News looks like the same user who created the article. Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Sims

I'm pretty sure you meant Tommy Sims not Tommy Simms in this edit [5]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

smiles

Good to see you still about too buddy. Hope all is well. :-) — Ched : |  ? | - 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Holding on by my toe nails - you know, kinda like a monkey.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I do remember those days. Hang in there, Baby. — Ched : |  ? | - 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Socking at AfD

Can you take a CU look at the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers) and see if any additional !votes should be invalidated due to socking? There's now been three IPs voting: two from the University of Michigan (35.2.178.120 and 35.1.103.105), and one (50.241.221.197) from Ann Arbor, Michigan, where the school is based. 50.241.221.197 had also tried to prod [6] and twice Afded [7][8] (didn't follow through and get the AfD page created) the article a few months ago. Curiously, other IPs had also tried to AfD the article before (another University of Michigan IP and an Ohio IP), each similarly failing to create the AfD Page. Finally, the AfD nominator is a new account whose first edit was to nominate the AfD. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Unfortunately, as a CU, there's not too much I can do. First, I can't disclose the IP(s) of named accounts, and, second, the user agents of institutional IPs are not necessarily meaningful. Hopefully, the closing administrator will discount the IP votes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what the normal protocol was here. I guess you couldn't say in the AfD that an IP was a sock of one the existing participants without disclosing which named account it was?—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think so. You know, you're one of the participants. --Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae

Since you closed Tenebrae's report about me on AN/I, which you mind telling him to stop saying that I "gave him permission" to edit Crusader Rabbit? He's done it now on the talk page [9]. ], [10], [11] -- despite my carefully explainging to him that a consensus discussion was not an expression of ownership [12]] -- and in an edit summary [13]. I find it offensive, and a continuation of his claim that I am exerting WP:OWNership over the article, which I am not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about an editor, do the courtesy of alerting the editor. I have always done that for you, because it's the right thing to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to even look at it. Just play nice. Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI query

Hi Bbb23, I'm after some advice relating to this SPI case you closed on 2/2/18 . I've had a number of comments from a range of IP addresses which allege that I'm a sockpuppet of a banned user. I've attempted to tidy up the log on my talk page about it (as you said, it was confusing), but don't bother reading it if you can answer me a couple of questions related to it:

• Is there anything I can do to preempt or disprove these accusations of Sockpuppetry?
• Given the user I suspect is behind it is banned, should I bother reporting these, and if so how/where? They are always IP addresses from the same geographical area.

It is not causing me any major problems at the moment (and given the amount of different addresses used I can't see how anything can reasonably be done about it), but I don't want to get banned / blocked myself if they do attempt to throw mud at me. Many thanks. Spike 'em (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should have looked into this first, but I see that self-checkuser requests are not allowed so that may answer most of my first point. Spike 'em (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: (edit conflict) It wasn't your Talk page I found confusing. It was the SPI report itself. Next time you have an IP whom you believe to belong to Richard Daft and who is bothering you, reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft and list the IP or IPs. The IP has to be currently editing, meaning there has to be disruption at the time you file it. You never open an SPI with an IP as the master if there is a named account you associate with it. If the IP is personally attacking you, it might be better/faster to report it at WP:ANI. That's up to you. I fail to see, though, how an IP attacking you would result in you being blocked. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure where I was meant to make the inital SPI report and realised I may have done it incorrectly. As to the block, I'm sure it is an idle threat, but the latest comment I had said they were collating a list of Socks to report. I just wanted to prepare myself on the off-chance that they follow though with it. Spike 'em (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Highstakes00

I saw you have closed the SPI but I would ask you to reconsider.

Since this filing from November 2015, the SPI filings became irrelevant to Highstakes00. In this report, no evidence was provided that the accounts are related to Highstakes00 or his socks. Highstakes00 only edited Pakistani articles and his interests and skills were far from making edits like these ones[14][15]. Registration of this account that is also years older than Highstakes00. Since this filing, this SPI has became more of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khocon. And this has happened before as well with other SPIs,[16] where the sock was unrelated to the said master but continued to sock.

That's why I said that "I am also sure that most of the accounts of this SPI's archive have nothing to do with Highstakes00", so that CUs can't go ahead and look for a connection with these paid editors having different location/timezone, who are native English speakers and have never touched any Pakistan-related articles.

TripWire's socking with same IP, which is same as Highstakes00, along with multiple topic bans over same subject, 100% similar timings and linguistic similarities should not be ignored. I can post more evidence. Capitals00 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Thanks for the heads up. I have fixed the user name on the Sockpuppet investigation page. Clean Copy^talk 13:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's new sock

Special:Contributions/Dina Rae the Postwoman, a new sock of Maria, who edited genre on Man of the Woods.[17] 115.164.79.99 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Declined CheckUser request.

Bbb23, I don't see how your statement here matches the documented policy. While "We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts" indisputably does match the policy, the conclusion that a CU must therefore be declined does not seem to be in accordance. The policy apparently specifically includes checking for IP account/named account overlap, as long as the IP of the named user is not disclosed. I'm probably missing something but I know that IP user/named account sockpuppetry is routinely caught. I hope you can clear up my confusion. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong, sorry. What's "routinely" done is to decline requests like yours, and I see no policy-based exception for the reasons you stated (there almost never is).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that this is one of those areas where routine administrator practice is not reflected in the policy? The policy states: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. I documented the last of those criteria and gave good reasons to suspect the second. It goes on to say: Unless someone is violating policy... it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP but it does not say it is a violation for the trusted users given access tot he tool to examine their IP, which is all that was requested. Our local policy indicates it can in fact check for the type of behavior I allege here of logging in to make some edits and logging out to make others: CheckUsers are able to view a list of all IP addresses used by a user account to edit the English Wikipedia... In this case, there is reason to believe that one of the non-permissible uses of multiple accounts was in play: The primary purpose of CheckUser is the prevention of sock-puppetry, ...(such as by double voting or by giving the impression there is more support for a position in a discussion or content dispute). If it is a violation of CheckUser policy for an editor to ask for this tool to help determine if logged-in/logged-out sockpuppeting is occurring, that is not what the policy says and the use of CU is documented poorly or incorrectly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

My last response. Your interpretation of what you read is way off base. You do not violate policy by requesting a CU; I would violate policy if I checked. I will revert any additional comments you make here on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Eggshorn, you have explicitly linked the IPs to the named account in the SPI report. If Bbb23 runs a check and then notes that the IPs are related to the account, they can't state their findings as it will be a violation of the Foundation's privacy policies to do so (except in rare cases of egregious disruption) as Bbb23 would be confirming that the IPs are used by the named account. It is routine that such requests are turned down and a request for behavioural comparison is made instead as no CU is going to put themselves in a situation wherein they could have their tools removed for violating the privacy policy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) In the SPI archive you linked above, you won't find a CU saying that they used CU to prove that IPs were used by the sockmaster. Admins can block IPs that they determine to be used for socking, and CU's (acting as admins only) can do so as well, but we're not going to run a check like the one you asked for. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

For my own info...

Why was Campeonato Carioca Third Division ineligible for g5? I may just skip over the sports articles in the NPP queue and let other reviewers more knowledgable about the topic deal with it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others." Article was not created in violation of a block (they were not socking at the time of creation). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN - so how does one go about calculating when a user decided to start sock farming to avoid a block? The block log tells us there may be a history, but I'm not privvy to anything other than what is available...or am I? Point me in the right direction, please...← → ↑ ↓...Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not related to a "decision". All about timing. The article has to be created after the sock blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Putting it another way, the article has to be created by a sockpuppet after the master is blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23 & NeilN...my question is...when we're going through 100s of blocked user creations that are in the NPP queue, is there a shortcut (or even a longcut) to finding out when there was a SPI/block and the dates to which you're referring? I apologize for doing this to you, but if you could use the subject article so I can learn the process, it would be so much appreciated...a round of beer...a Starbucks coupon...whatever...next time I see you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: If the creator is a sockmaster (like in this case) then their creations are never G5-eligible. If the creator is a puppet then you have to find the master and see when they were blocked (look at the block log). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

...it's best if I just leave that sort of thing to someone more experienced than I. I can handle issues relating to GNG, RS, promo, COI, etc. but as far as I'm concerned, socks belong in a sock drawer and I still believe there's a sock elf that steals socks from the dryer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Atsme: The easiest way is to check the userpage for a socktag and then go from there. GAB^gab 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sanford Litvack concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sanford Litvack, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The link is WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Verdy p

Hello Bbb23, Could I draw your attention to further comments from Verdy p on the Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. They seem to take no notice comments from yourself and another administrator and do not acknowledge that they have been edit warring on Rockall and have breached WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR on a number of occasions. Is further action required? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Those that made that just want to hide themselves, they ignore the facts voluntarily and have a selective view, breaching the NPOV; they've started the war, and even wanted to mask the existence of problems that should be noted because their own sources are contradicting what is in the article. Given the objectives of neutrality and quality in Wikipedia, theses contradictions should be noted. And even if there are sources, they must be qualified for what they really say (or don't say) and used with care (sources can also be oriented), so there are different objectives and policies (using one of them against another will not allow solving the problem, it just complicates the mitigation).

There's a problem yes, but I'm not the only one concerned, and the various WP policies cited are just selectively used ignoring the other policies. I complained about the tone and false personal allegations against me or what I did ot did not do (these were completely gratuitous). I was complaining according to CIVIL to what someone said about me, and now this complain is used as if I breached the same CIVIL policy... verdy_p (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway I don't understand why I am the only one cited in this litigation when the edit war was made by others that cited me unfairly (and do not want that I reply to these citations they have posted in several places just to defend their own position). verdy_p (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not taking any administrative action at this point because Verdy p's breach of WP:3RR is now stale. However, their conduct has been subpar, their understanding of policy weak, and their approach to other editors in resolving a dispute unfortunately aggressive. What all this means is that if they persist in the future, they are likely to be blocked. Verdy p, your use of the word "litigation" in a content dispute exemplifies your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not breached the "3RR" rule at all, someelse did ! The first being agressive was that same person using personal comments and false statements about what I did or did not do. The terme "litigation" seems appropriate here, as well as "mitigation" which is the way to solve it. But multiple policies have been used selectively, ignoring the other ones. There still remains contradictions and no desire to balance the various policies and public objectives of Wikipedia where exposing a source does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate and cannot be balanced by other more relevant (and more international) sources that the first source is supposed to respect by its own law and by its deposited ratification instruments. No opne has been able to proove that the EEZ extension exists internationally except possibly in UK (but even there this is not sure given that the British law is in contradiction and because there's an established precedence of ratified international treaties to national laws, including in UK when asked multiple times in a British high court of justice or when arbitrated by an international court ruling an international treaty). verdy_p (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but with the exception of your comments about the content, which are largely irrelevant when we're talking about conduct, everything you say is nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bourdeilles view.jpg

Hello. I came across this photo via the random file function on Commons. I’m struck by the "semi-urban greenness" of it. Thank you for sharing it with the world. Green Giant (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Semi-urban"—Il y a seulement cinq villas visibles! "Mmmm"  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bien sûr, mais quand je pense rural, j'imagine une ferme et des champs! C'est pourquoi j'ai mis les guillemets. :) Green Giant (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it was absolutely beautiful! But the climb to the top of the tower was daunting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah—was it the castle where you took the photo? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It was the keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Sorry to attempt to reopen a closed discussion. I do have issue though with a dispute being handled by people who were involved in the discussion the complaint relates to. What would be the proper place to bring that up? TylerRDavis (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Drop the whole thing. You're only going to get yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to clarify, there is no guidance or policy against dispute resolutions being handled by people involved in the conversation in question? TylerRDavis (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about dispute resolution. You brought a frivolous complaint to ANI about an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not great with the terminology or procedures. Did I bring my initial complaint to the wrong place? If I believe that complaint was mishandled due to the people addressing it being involved in the village pump conversation, is there a place to address that? I apologize for being a bit naive about how this all works, but I don't think that's a valid reason for me not to be heard. TylerRDavis (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

My final comment. You brought the complaint to the right place, but it was a meritless complaint. As I stated at the get-go, just drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Block of User:Ftxs

Hi! As the founder of the Soviet Aviation task force I noticed you blocked User:Ftxs even though the account had not damaged the wiki. Ftxs worked quickly through our project redlist, sometimes even writing multiple B-class articles from the translation list. Having separate accounts by itself is permitted, I've created a few redirects to my page with cyrillic+latin letters too prevent user impersonation/spoofing (and forgotten to login before editing once in a while). Wikipedia guidelines permit, understandably, for people to have a "regular editing account" for their edits on issues not related to politics and use a separate one for political issues to protect their identity, etc. Given the intense censorship of plane crashes in the USSR and political polarization of Soviet-related issues, I think its ok if someone doesn't want their "normal" account to be associated with Soviet aviation writing so they can write more anonymously about Soviet aviation, especially in some current political situations. The aviation articles Ftxs wrote were very good and he was making more progress on the project task list in a few days than I had in a month. All other users combined on the Soviet Aviation task force aren't working through the desperately needed missing article list as fast as Ftxs. I request that you reconsider the block to promote the transfer of knowledge from Russian to English Wikipedia. Sincerely, PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

As the CU who dealt with the SVG SPI, where you may wish to chime in at the ANI thread concerned about the stale socking. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out who SVG is (a link would've been nice). I was already vaguely aware of the ANI thread and had - have - no interest in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry....I thought SVG would be decipherable enough and was writing from a mobile where linking etc. was a tad difficult and time-consuming.Anyway, I thought that since you had declined to take any action on the very same premises, a day before, you might be interested in the proceedings.Cheers!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock, not sure who?

Hey I noticed you blocked BustOut1996 and I noticed BustRaps1997 has just popped up trying to edit their userpage and same weird content on their user page. I'm not sure who CSFP is so can't file appropriately. See also BustOut1995. Sorry for bringing this here but I'm not sure what SPI/LTA this belongs to based on the acronym. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: CSFP is the main account that I discovered, but the place to report new socks would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LieutenantJames20. I couldn't technically connect CSFP and socks to that SPI because the original accounts are  Stale. Reopening the SPI would be a benefit if you don't mind doing the work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an idiot. I kept trying to look up CFSP. *headdesk*. I just reopened the LJ20 SPI with the last account you CU blocked + two new ones. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The main one who have assistant accounts on same page

Hello Mr/Mrs Bbb23, did the investigation find that the user User:O.celebi not related to the "group" of people making multiple accounts on same page to spread political motivated propaganda? He's the main one i complained against as it was very obvious on Turks in Egypt history page that he has 2 accounts in the page.[18] Beronzya (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado

I have been more busy with an ANI issue these days. Its a coincidence that I was checking some articles and I have once again discovered a sock of ApostleVonColorado aka Ms Sarah Welch, that was abused until July 2015. While I am aware that a decision has been already taken for the sockmaster and I have no plans to change it, but we should note that AVC denied any socking and since the block there has been no edits from him. With the filing of this sock, I believe that we will at least confirm the fact that more socks had been abused by AVC and regardless of the request to reveal them, AVC decided not to reveal. Should I file an SPI or not? I just think that we should document this suspected sock. Lorstaking (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And this account is?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

M Tracy Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lorstaking (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In normal cases, I wouldn't bother, but this hasn't been a normal case. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

connected socks

Hi.
Recently, I came across history of this article: [19]. Do you think these socks can be inter-related? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

177.221.167.124

I have identified this as a concern that the IP address has been used by Josepolivares who has been blocked indefinitely by CheckUser evidence. The user still uses the same behaviour to revert edits on a large group of articles. Iggy (Swan) 18:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For dealing with the troll on Skowronek. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

Glad to be of help.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Any chance of a rangeblock?

Sounds like a checkuser unearthed this one. Yesterday it was this one, probably same person. Any chance a rangeblock would slow them down for a while? Not sure if an SPI is needed, or if this can just append to the previous ones. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabhorseguy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Alacrity25

I see you blocked Alacrity25 today. It was fairly obvious he was a sockpuppet of South Nashua - they asked virtually the same question about articles on individual sumo tournaments. My question is, he did actually have the gem of an idea there, so is it ok for me to work on Draft:January 2018 Basho or is it likely to be deleted?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I have no idea what the draft is even about. If you think you can make it into a notable article, by all means go ahead. I suggest, though, that you start editing it substantively - or at least post a message to its Talk page - so it doesn't get g5ed. If it does, though, I can restore it you ask me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. He didn't get very far with it, to be fair, but I'll give it a go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear...

... you say this. Thanks for all of the work you put in on cases like that. It is much appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: I don't usually lose my temper, but it was one of the more difficult checks I've run in a while. To be fair, though, I don't think most people understand the process. I couldn't possibly run a check lilke that without keeping notes, and it's in those notes that I try to keep straight who is related to whom and who is unrelated to anyone. I'm pretty organized, but it's not easy. At the end, or what I think is the end, I put all the stuff together in what I hope is a clear, if complex, presentation. Then they pull the rug out from under my feet. Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I can imagine how complicated it must be dealing with so many different editors and trying to identify distinct groups. When sock-hunting though, it's very easy to fall down a rabbit hole and just find more and more suspicious accounts, and it's difficult to know what to do with them other than list them at the SPI as they're found. SmartSE (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated. Sorry if toes got stepped on. I'm not sure what you meant about pinging you, so when it's convenient could you outline a procedure that works better for you? If the case shouldn't be touched after you change the status to "checking", that's cool ☆ Bri (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I don't think it's necessary to wait until my check is over. It'd be nice if you could figure out all the accounts you want to add at one time, though. Pinging: when you add accounts after I start checking, ping me when making the edit. That'll cut through my check and alert me to the fact there are more, hopefully before I start sorting the results of the check in my notes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We were dredging up new stuff in a more-incremental-than-usual fashion at COIN today. Will keep this in mind and give you a heads-up if that kind of situation develops again. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

About the IPs

A late question. In the Swingoswingo investigations, I see the IPs were spared from block. On behavioral ground, I found them related. Did the technical investigation prove otherwise, or any other reason? -AsceticRosé 15:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The IPs' edits were too old to take any action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Killian779 (blocked) possibly using another account

XEUXL (talk · contribs)

An editor named Killian779 have been blocked by Coffee awhile ago for vandalism [20] [21], the editor has made another account with a similar name called Killian059, and continue to vandalize Wikipedia with edits like theses: [22] [23] [24]. After K6ka has blocked this editor in November of last year, it appears the editor has made a new account and continue to vandalize Wikipedia by adding unsourced or incorrect credits as before [25] [26] [27]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The two blocked accounts are  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean about that? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It means that I, as a CheckUser, will not investigate. If you wish, you can create an SPI and present behavioral evidence that links the three accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo

Hi, I opened a SPI case today [28] but here it says the case was opened on February 20. I guess it says so because the last case on the suspected master has not been archieved yet. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk)

The first report was filed on February 20. Your report was filed on February 25, which is what the SPI says.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the page of the SPI case itself says so but the list of the currently open cases says February 20. However, I am glad it is not a problem. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but that's not right, either. The first report opened on February 20 is closed. Your request is in CU status, meaning you requested a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm only a new CU, so there's probably been "worse", but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00 deserves some sort of medal or something.. - TNT❤ 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I finished it just now, for better or for worse. I was too tired to finish it last night. Ironically, I'm now sick. Still, I doubt that difficult SPIs cause colds. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to slide in and add my thanks too- I can't even begin to think how complicated it all must have been! Hope you get better soon too. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy crap, I just looked at that case for the first time. Talk about service above and beyond the call. Whatever WMF is paying you, they should double it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

stockpuppet invetigation - 82.112.167.22

Hi Bbb23, Greetings to you. As per above IP and the link here [29], comment from you was "This is not the proper venue for this issue". May I know where could I go to find out if IP 82.112.167.22 and IP82.112.167.23 are the same user for the vandalism both IP users caused? Thanks in advance for the assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They are obviously the same person. You don't need SPI to tell you that. The IP addresses are as close to each other as possible. The proper venue would be WP:AIV (more warnings on their Talk pages would be helpful), WP:ANEW if between the two of them they are edit-warring, or WP:RFPP if there's enough disruption on a particular article. At this point, though, it's unlikely an administrator will do anything unless they start editing again. The last edit for .23 was on February 14, and the last for .22 was on February 23. We don't normally block IPs unless the disruption is going on now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

hi Bbb23, ok thanks for the information. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TxBuiltSolutions

Thanks for your comment. However, both users made the same copyvio edits from the same website which is socking. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An admin invited them to create another account. The second account can make any edits it wants but it can't be socking. It could be disruptive for other reasons, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Block of User:Wrachel

Dear Bbb23, As the academic coordinator of Wikimedia Israel I have been in touch with Prof. Rachel Weissbrod who wrote the article International Doctorate in Translation Studies. After the copyvio warning was placed on the page, she requested help from her son (User:Biog), who has edited on Wikipedia before. I can attest that there is no sock puppetry here, and would appreciate if you were to reconsider their indefinite ban. Thanks! Keren - WMIL (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The two users/accounts can go through normal channels. Biog requested an unblock on their Talk page without disclosing the relationship. Wrachel appealed to WP:UTRS without disclosing the relationship. Yet here you are disclosing it for them? I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but their efforts have been at best disingenuous, more realistically deceptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Or, even more realistically, unfamiliar with the procedures, rules and regulations. Sad that you can't tell the difference between those users and the ones with malicious intentions. Keren - WMIL (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha

Hi bbb23, I want you to look at the comment by made by User:Hussain.r97.. "how can I operate two accounts at the exact same time". And then compare the comments made by Masterpha on SPI page.. both are indeed similar, but maybe using two different IPs? --Saqib (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Masterpha made a comment on their Talk page. NeilN copied it over to the SPI because Masterpha was blocked at the time. Same comment made by same user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I know that. I am asking you to compare the language and wording of both Masterpha and Hussain.r97.. It gives impression that both accounts run by the same person but using two different IPs. --Saqib (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, just woke up. I don't see that it matters, but in those two examples Hussain's English is a bit better than Masterpha's.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPI:De la lombertie

Hello Bbb23, as you have deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/De la lombertie, can I ask you how best to proceed to bring the disruptive edits of this cross-wiki sock-master to an end? Your G6 deletion summary that the alleged master has no edits at en.wiki was not correct. While the sock master (User:De la lombertie) has not edited with his global user account on English Wikipedia, he has many, many edits on English Wikipedia by using multiple IPs as were listed in the SPI. Is there a way to list a cross-wiki user name in the header of an SPI? Loopy30 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Reformatted and now re-submitted as SPI for IP address 88.136.200.141 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: I don't know why you mess with the structure of the SPI. The last one was dreadful. This one I could at least fix and did. Now, please remove every IP from the list who hasn't edited in 2018. Generally, we don't block IPs who haven't edited very recently, say the last day or two, but for the moment, just remove the ones from before 2018, and someone will deal with the 2018 stale ones later.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Loopy30 (talk)

Done. Although not all are very recent, the point is to establish that they are all a pattern of continued disruptive editing by a banned editor so that it will be easier to ask for blocks on specific IP addresses as they pop up. These blocks will then be achieved faster and the collateral damage less to clean up. If he his banned on two or more projects, we can apply to institute a cross-wiki ban to cover the other six (or more?) projects he is doing the same edits on. Loopy30 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, none is very recent by my definition. The 2/28 IP comes the closest. I suspect you're not going to get very far with your goal. Even in other cases where IPs are very recent when the report is filed become stale by the time a clerk looks at them. IPs at SPI in most cases are not given a great deal of attention. If they are sufficiently disruptive, they are usually blocked outside of SPI. IP ranges are sometimes better if at least one of the IPs in the range has edited very recently, but I don't see any ranges in your revised report. Normally, I'd close your case now, but I'll leave it open for a short time to see if it attracts the attention of another member of the team.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Mubarak 647's dab pages

Hi, I see that you've G5ed all the dab pages created by Mubarak 647. I haven't looked at all of them, but the half a dozen or so that I've seen (Chakwal (disambiguation) is probably among them) were perfectly valid. I think it'll be much more effort to recreate them from scratch than to restore them and review them for oddities (I'd be up for the second part of the task). – Uanfala (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in restoring possibly "valid" dab pages created by a sock. The project existed without them until recently and somehow we survived. If you want to contact another administrator and they are willing, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, these dabs got incorporated into the system of hatnotes, and now that they've been deleted, this is a mess. Probably a good idea to check for incoming link before deleting dab pages? Anyway, I will follow up on your suggestion and seek help elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Dakotaparty

Apologies if I may have been impulsive yesterday, but I was acting based on previous precedent regarding the sockpuppeteer's behaviour, e.g. addition of info regarding a non-notable actor, presumably the user himself, and it has been documented in previous incidents. I mentioned @WayKurat: since he knows about the case way better than I do, if that helps. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Socks at AfD

Hi Bbb23, I'm approaching you as I see the SPI cases a bit backlogged. There are signs of socks being involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HR Aaqib Hameed, with the speedy deletion tag removed by a new editor. Could you please take a look and do the needful. Thanks, MT Train^Talk 15:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that SPI is backlogged. You'll have to open a new case.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I'll do that. MT Train^Talk 16:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing SPIs

Sorry about this, but how am I supposed to know that? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Closing doesn't say anything about it and in that instance it was clearly not ready to be closed since there are accounts that haven't been dealt with via CU. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said or implied that you should know that. Technically, an administrator can reopen an SPI that's been closed but in these circumstances, it's inappropriate. When I saw it, I cringed, an instinctive reaction to the effective revert of a CheckUser's action. A good analogy is if I decline a CU and someone reinstates the CU request. Any editor (admin or no) can request a CU, but not in those circumstances. What accounts weren't checked? There was one account that wasn't rechecked, but it made no sense as the check I ran was on the same day that account last edited, meaning there was nothing new to check.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok well I misunderstood twice then. It's not that the accounts haven't been checked, but that the behaviour hasn't been analysed - hence 'checked' not 'requested'. Given your comment about Surfing Jim editing from 3 continents it's obvious they're using proxies now, so we need to decide based on the behaviour. Of course I get about not re-requesting CU if it's declined, but Callanecc's close didn't involve CU, so I presumed they were wearing their admin-hat as opposed to their CU-hat and it seemed better to me to stop it being archived, rather than needing to be reopen or revert it. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Surfing Jim found open ports so as to edit from three different continents, but he wasn't using standard proxies; he was using legitimate ISPs. Jaskirann was also using a standard ISP on one of the continents from which Surfing Jim edited, and they were using the same UAs. However, Mulibra and La mom were different. They were using the exact same range with the exact same UAs (but not the same as Jaskirann). As for behavior, I don't see why more behavioral analysis is needed. At the same time, if you are confident that Jaskirann is a sock, block the account. Other administrators do so when they feel that behavioral trumps technical. I see nothing wrong with it, and it would solve "our" little problem. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Damn wrong again ;) Not to up to speed on the intracies of avoiding CU so to me proxy is just synonymous with some way of getting round it! I feel a bit uncomfortable about being the accuser, judge and executioner but maybe I should be more bold when I think it's blatantly obvious. Same story with that Vodka AFD which has at least been reopened now. All the best. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm really just trying to help, not make you feel "wrong" all the time. Simplistically, there are two groups. The first includes webhosts and providers that cater to businesses only (dedicated servers, cloud hosting, colocation, and other kinds of services - they are usually just as bad as a webhost if an ordinary person is using them). When a user editing from a proxy in this group - and there are a ton of them, although some are more notorious than others - the user agent is reliable as they are still using their own equipment. The second group includes corporations, academic institutions, government institutions, and public places like libraries. When a user is using from a proxy in this group, the analysis is harder because they may be using their own equipment or they may be using the institution's equipment. Sometimes you can tell, and sometimes you can't. Legitimate ISPs, e.g., Time Warner Cable in the U.S., Virgin Media in Britian, Airtel Broadband in India, PCTL in Pakistan, etc., are not proxies. It's unusual, but a particular IP of a legitimate provider may be used as a proxy by a savvy user. As for your blocking, you found an account that you believe is likely a sock of another user. It doesn't have to be melodramatic. Just block them. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Do you mind if I go ahead and close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DCGeist or do you want Ceoil to reply? If you look through his talk page/block log, I think the removals of the tags are him reacting to a block he got for edit warring on an ArbCom case, and the dissatisfaction some of the really content heavy editors feels with admins (not that I necessarily agree with those points, but trying to see the logic there). I don't think keeping the SPI open longer will do anything but cause drama as his wife and other users have started to comment at the SPI, but also don't want to step on your toes at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I want him to reply. His conduct was wrong. His rant on the SPI page was also wrong. He gets away with a lot of crap because he has many ardent supporters. Gobsmacked, my ass.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, his wife self-reverted, not that it matters to me. Both of them should self-declare on their userpages per WP:FAMILY.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I get that, and agree the conduct was wrong. Someone said he only edits on weekends, so it might take a while. Like I said, I was checking to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes . Thanks for all the unsung work you do. Also, not ever sure if I told you how glad I was to have you back after you returned from your break, so might as well now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting. If there are unconstructive comments from the peanut gallery, I'll revert them. Thanks for the kind words!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Cttgaming

I don't think he has a real clue but thought he'd answered. Maybe I'll drop him a hint.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

He still has not made any affirmation. Instead went off in another direction about Sam-whatever. Not encouraged.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, that tangent was the result of my questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me. Cttgaming (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice barnstar.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to thank you very much for your help here. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret. Even if the two accounts hadn't been operated by the same person, I would have blocked the puppet for other reasons. After all a vandal/troll by any other name ... I mainly ran the check in case there were more accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I see - thanks very much. Does that mean I need not have gone through SPI or asked for Checkuser? I'm unclear on procedure in this area and just wanted to try to get them shut down and perhaps limit their chances of coming straight back, but I may not have a proper understanding of what I was doing! cheers DBaK (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Markhyun

Hi. You blocked this user but didn't specify a sock-master account. More info please? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Specifically, though, I came across Draft:Ten (singer), which the blocked user created. Knowing the circumstances of the block would help inform the best course of action for the draft. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. I'll cut this short to save you some time. I don't intend to answer your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, okay then :/ --Paul_012 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You protec the pages, you bloc the vandals, but most importantly, your worc on SPI reports is awesome. Nickag989talk 20:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Got your message from ANI. Thanks. I have all the answers I was looking for.

BTW, I absolutely was NOT recruiting anyone to do anything but look at his talk page. Is there anyone with two days experience on WP that doesn't understand how to cancel an edit process they've started? But it's a moot point now. I'm quite glad to be gone. Evensteven (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted message

Hello, I was wondering why you deleted the message I left MagicJulius? Your edit summary was 'not a good idea' but the message was just saying 'Please add your references', so I'm confused. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

He's indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

I see that a clerk has merged and closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geekyhistorian without any action on the meatpuppetry issues. Granted, it was a mess, but what now seems clear is that what seemed to be behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry wasn't pointing to sockpuppetry. It was much better explained by the admission of meatpuppetry by User:Sonofhistory. There's plenty of supporting evidence of two years of meatpuppetry organized on Tumblr, but linking to it would implicate WP:OUTING.

So now what? Is there any consequence for meatpuppetry? I don't really think it would be particularly useful to block the meats; I think WP would be better served by a banner at Talk:John Laurens that gives notice of meatpuppet activity on the page, and that perhaps lists user accounts that are confirmed meats. Since sockpuppetry is no longer the real issue here, would it still require a new SPI request to make that kind of banner happen? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't even want to look at this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I can hardly blame you for that. Is there anywhere else to bring up meatpuppetry? I would guess that any administrator could provide the remedy that I'm suggesting (a talk page banner). Or I could boldly write one myself. Would it step on any administrative toes if I do that? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

New Accounts for Checkuser

My apologies for not pinging you that I added new accounts while you were checking. Sorry... reddogsix (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're not the only one to do it (unfortunately). I just wanted to give you a heads up for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sanford Litvack

Hello, Bbb23. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sanford Litvack".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

silly question

Never mine I obviously don't know what year it is.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You should seek help. Everyone knows it's 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Check on account creation

Codename Lisa vanished [30] and I noticed her account was recreated. I indef blocked, taking away talk page and email access seeing it's likely some imposter (she was being harassed by an IP) but can you please run a CU to make sure it isn't her recreating her account for some reason? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: They are not the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo

Hi, after I reverted one confirmed sock of VJ-Yugo, this account was created and immediately reverted me. You blocked three other socks of VJ-Yugo a hour ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Now the new account is blindly reverting me in several articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Elseford

Can you please explain why you removed my report of 23 more likely socks from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elseford? I don't care where in the report they go but I don't see why we should pretend they don't exist. (Obviously, I am not asking for CU on them.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If it were just the wrong section, I would simply have moved it. The thrust of the case is to handle only non-stale accounts. We already had a slew of stale accounts, and at my request, everything was separated by Ivanvector. I then checked the non-stale accounts and posted my findings. Ivanvector is on top of things and will at some point move the SPI to the oldest confirmed account. If in the future, if any of the stale socks resume editing or new socks are created, you may reopen the SPI. In the meantime, the addition of stale accounts will not be permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) David, we appreciate your investigation but please don't do clerk jobs at SPI. These include renaming cases and changing the status flag, other than closing a report after performing actions as a patrolling administrator. There are extra steps involved with clerking that you and Joel B. Lewis both missed, not that they were problematic to fix but it's just making extra work unnecessarily. If you're interested in clerk training you can add yourself to the list at WT:SPI/C.

I didn't see your addition to the case before Bbb23 reverted it, but I noticed the crossover sockpuppetry at Ivan Fesenko from the CU results. I'm not going to block any of the stale throwaways because I'm familiar with this pattern and it's extremely rare for any of the throwaway accounts to be used again, the editor(s) behind this probably don't even have access any more. The behaviour pattern is obvious and we now have technical data to work from for future abuse, but I think we've gone a pretty long way to stopping this with page protection. We'll see I guess. I will have a look at the stale accounts you added to see if there are any more obvious crossovers, but nothing was obvious from the first two sets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: where in the history do you see me renaming cases or changing the status flag? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread this edit summary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

JonFX

You’ve deleted The page of JonFX, He is one of the most prominent record producers, especially in reggae, multi-platinum, multiple billboard charting, Grammy, member.

He is currently credited on the #1 album in the USA, on iTunes now.

I would need to know the steps to have a new page created by you and necessary cost. Mixahead (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How much did the last person charge you to write the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser

Noted. Rookie mistake. Never done an SPI before, I'm just tired of all the vandalism. Thanks for clarifying. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've seen SPI-experienced editors make the same "mistake". Not to worry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about ANI close

Hi Bbb23,

I see that you closed a thread at ANI about user Bastun, but noted that he didn't have the right to readd a warning to the ip's talkpage. I was curious about that. I know that registered users can delete things from their talk pages since it means they have read them, but I thought ips weren't or aren't allowed to do this because others might miss that? No big deal and also thank you for your efforts at ANI. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap, I am now seeing the above thread :). You don't need to reply twice. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi, re your close of this case, I was just wondering why you said I wasn't entitled to re-instate warnings on the IP's talk page? Isn't this a clear case of WP:QUACK? Please see also this from 4 March and later. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to report the IP at WP:SPI, that's your prerogative. Otherwise, per WP:OWNTALK, a user is entitled to remove a warning. For you to persist to reinstate the warning, no matter how well-intentioned, is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Like Malerooster, I too was under the impression that an IP address wasn't entitled to control of "their" own page, but thanks for the clarification. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why call me silly?

This edit of yours I strongly object to. Not only do I find this morning that I can not reply to the other users, but also the line with which the ANI request is closed I find almost insulting. Can you explain, and possibly un-close the ANI request? --Mathmensch (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In particular, I don't think everyone has the right to insult me on this online platform. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

First, I didn't call you "silly"; I called the thread silly. Second, if you think "everyone" is insulting you on Wikipedia, you might ask yourself why. Third, rather than prolonging this nonsense by leaving posts on various users' Talk pages, I suggest you either do something constructive, e.g., edit an article, or find an "online platform" that is more to your liking. If you continue the way you are, you risk being blocked for WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Salted Ham

Appears to me a user left a message for you on the article page? Just FYI.--Cahk (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

All gone now but no big deal anyway. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

bypassing WP:SALT

The page Darshan Raval was salted by you as it was being repeatedly recreated. A user has recreated the same page at Darshan Raval (Playback Singer) to bypass that ban. Can you please look into it? Coderzombie (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I salted the article years ago. I'm not going to unilaterally delete the new one just because the creator bypassed procedure. If you think the new one is deletable, then use whatever deletion process you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

I don't know if you recall the two sockfarms, with a total of eleven different accounts, that were exposed last year at People's Mujahedin of Iran and documented here, but when I see an editor like London Hall pop up at that article to rapidly delete well-sourced material critical of the group with edit summaries such as "NPOV" and "NPOV," it's hard for me not to suspect that they may well be another sock. However, I don't have sufficient evidence to file an SPI at this time, so I am merely commenting here to ask if it would be possible for you to perform a checkuser comparison between this account and the two previous known sockfarms, based largely on the fact that this article deserves heightened scrutiny due to the previous sockpuppet attacks (and what may well be the PMOI's own efforts to scrub it clean of any criticism). If my suspicions prove baseless and London Hall is exonerated, then that would serve the welcome purpose of clearing the air and allowing all interested parties to more readily move forward with an assumption of good faith. Either way, thank you for reading this.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see that this has been superseded by the new SPI.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-indeffed account

DarlaPayne1032003 appears to still be blocked for only 31 hours. Could you increase that to indef? Thanks for rounding these up. Home Lander (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Done. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Forgot to roll back my LogAntiLog edit. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You're forgiven. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Reconsider SPI

I asking if you would consider re looking at the latest part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Melissaburner which you quickly closed as master and the listed sock are both blocked. On the surface that looks like the obvious an sensible close. My case was lacking, I should have pointed out the thinking. Listed sock has created multiple articles to promote the two individual they are focused on, confirming as a sock would allow speedy G5 to come into action instead of taking the communities time at afd. Current close also has the unfortunate unintended side effect of effectively rewarding the listed sock for getting blocked, preserving their work. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The account was blocked months ago. I can't check it because it's stale, and I'm not going to ask a clerk to make a finding just for the purpose of g5'ing one article and several drafts. There is enough work for the clerks to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Makes clear sense (even if not entirely right, 5 articles). Afd it is. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Kak Channthy

I dispute your speedy deletion of Kak Channthy on grounds of A7 and have raised this with the nominator at User talk:Snickers2686. Please comment there if you so desire. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Violetriga: I've reconsidered and restored the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick efforts with this. I'll add a little more to make it clearer why she's notable. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Sacar Adhikari

I had given good references to the article but it deleted why? Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was embarrassing. It said nothing at all, let alone a credible claim of significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Pankaj Acharaya: Also, biofamous does not meet WP:RS and nor does glamorousnepalese. Cheers, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser 2

Hi. Could you please check here? 115.164.42.224 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Could you please check out this range (185.145.202.0/24)? 185.145.202.171 looks to me to be Apollo The Logician returning to same areas, and seems to be a webhost. Thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Morning

You just deleted the wikipedia page of Good Morning, perhaps one of Melbourne's most internationally popular band on an underground level, for instance Tyler, The Creator has vouched for one of their songs. I'd like to know why you were so quick to delete this page, when it was clear it had just been made, clearly needing some revisions that would place it in most substantial territory, but the major groundwork had taken place, for there to be quite a tangible source of information for the band

The band is signed to Bedroom Suck, which is linked with large labels like Remote Control and Omnian, with Bedroom Suck putting out some of the biggest local Australian acts at the moment, with company like Blank Realm and Scott and Charlene's Wedding joining Good Morning as these bands.

Would be great if you could possibly allow the page to be in a position to be afforded more tangible edits, as there is certainly creedence for it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnarcsMan (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello GnarcsMan. The page, created by Olliflower (related?), was deleted as an "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". It appears that the sole part of the article that wasn't sourced to the band itself was:

In 2013, Blair and Parsons "went halvies on a Foxtek 4 track tape machine". Good Morning "is the result of that investment."

So the deletion was entirely proper. You're welcome to create a radically different, well sourced draft at Draft:Good Morning (band). When you think it's ready to become an article, you can propose this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hoary - That user is not related, but yes, essentially quite a lot of this deleted article could be attributed to some substantive sources and I would be appreciated if in this attempt to create a draft, a version of that which was deleted could become available — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnarcsMan (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. You are (and anyone is) welcome to edit Draft:Good Morning (band). -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Howdy GnarcsMan/Olliflower, I nominated the article for the speedy, I'd suggest checking out WP:NBAND to make sure the article demonstrates that Good Morning meets the notability requirements. At the moment, the majority of sources WP:SELFSOURCED as Facebook or Last.fm user profiles. Check out WP:RS to if you are unsure of what is needed for reliable sources. Else feel free to post any further questions on my talk page — IVORK _Discuss 04:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

LTA/Apollo the Logician is back

Please see this and this. As you were the last to block, I figured you would recognize the quacking fairly quickly. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

ScrapIronVI, why do you think I am this person? I am honestly very confused right now. This accusation just came out of the blue without any substantiation.177.247.215.44 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You might also take a look at 202.67.95.70 - this diff reintroduced changes also inserted by the blocked 80.111.*.* socks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:VJ-Yugo

Hello. You blocked User:Wollie JU (and their follow-on account User:Kerenski-Dubra) as a confirmed sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo, and now a brand new account, BeoNH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), pops up, restoring content previously posted by Wollie JU on Serbian Armed Forces. So would you mind taking a look at them? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done plus one more.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lukas Gage

There is absolutely no evidence of notability. The article is not fit to be on Wikipedia.Makro (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision 829827960, Gun Laws in Iowa

Inappropriate reversion claimed as "adding more unsourced material". Firstly, the existing sentence was not sourced to begin with. More information was simply added. Secondly, all information was sourced directly from Code of Iowa §724. "Citation needed" would have been appropriate. Removing the additions and leaving the prior section without citations or "citation needed" is absurd. Additions have been restored as these omissions negatively impact the substance of the section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Iowa — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieroGT42 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ivan B

Not sure why the page was deleted, there was an indication of importance shown via his music following, for instance, 10 million+ views on his most popular song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vargo2 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of Shine School Media Awards

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Shine School Media Awards. I do not think that Shine School Media Awards fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because "UK-wide school journalism competition run by Stationers Hall in London." is a clear claim of significance. I request that you consider not re-tagging Shine School Media Awards for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. I know you are an experienced editor, and I assume that this was a mistake, or possibly that I have missed something. Therefore I bring it to your attention. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ann Mandelbaum

Hi Bbb23 can I take you up on the offer to userfy Ann Mandelbaum? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Done: Draft:Ann Mandelbaum.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i

FYI — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Epan

It's back and it has re-created the "MicrosoftWindows" redirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EpanIndonesia Jeh (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems it's been taken care of. Jeh (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The person is WP:NOTHERE, created many bad redirects and guess what, this is possibly be a same person that run the YouTube channel with same name that I not going to link. As this point it has to rest. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0F8:F6AC:3841:9486 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Anne Gamble Kennedy

You deleted Anne Gamble Kennedy under A7. However, the created has posted at the help desk saying that there are references to add. I would like to restore this and move it to Draft space (or user space if you prefer) so that it can be improved and possibly qualify for the main article space. Would you object? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, go ahead. Thanks for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, with many edits following. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Anomalipes

I noticed you've deleted the Anomalipes page just because it was created by a certain user. However, that dinosaur is actually described, and here is the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23252-2

00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Atlantis536 (talk)

And while I'm at it, also the Tratayenia page. That dinosaur has been scientifically described too. Both names appear on George Olshevsky's Dinosaur Genera List. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)