User talk:Bbb23/Archive 58

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

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

  • added
  • readded
  • removed

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Mshoaibishaq

COI also. Email me if you want details. DMacks (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Block of User:Wikpediauser0

I don't think the WP:NOTHERE apply to this block. Wikpediauser0's knowledge of grammar and guideline is suboptimal, but all of their edits are attempting to be constructive. Roostery123 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Setswana

Hello, Bbb23. You may be interested to look into the (recent and general) conduct of Setswana (talk · contribs). Its very possible that WP:COMPETENCE and WP:DISRUPTIVE could apply in this case. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy article lock

It's been locked for 7 days now. I think it's time for the lock to be removed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Mehrshad Shahidi

Hi! Yesterday you'd deleted Mehrshad Shahidi as G5. Today, E. Karimof has created Draft:Mehrshad Shahidi. Thought you'd want to take a closer look. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the same person to me, but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Weegee1000

Hi Bbb23. I found a user who is claiming to be a new account of User:Weegee1000. I didn't think it was worth opening an SPI, but I wanted to let someone know. The new account is User:Weegee1000 Revamped and they claim, on their user page, to be said user. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick notice on this draft.

Thanks for telling me about overlinking, I didn’t know about that. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)SikiWtideI

Quick note on User talk:Athaenara

Thanks for your edits to User talk:Athaenara.

That was not my intention, I was just trying to provide advice to help them return to normal editing. I have done this before to other editors with no trouble.

I do not want to get in a heated debate, but I do want to help provide a path moving forward. I have done my best to focus exclusively on user conduct and not on the editor. What I have said regarding "If a specific comment, edit, pattern of edits, or the like is not going to be received well by the community, it is not a good idea to do it" holds true. I know the circumstances leading up to Athaenara's block is infuriating, at the same time people deserve second chances. Per our blocking policy as well we only block people if leaving them unblocked currently risks disruption to the project. I agree the comments made by Athaenara on RfA and similar should be received as trolling and should thus be handled at such. I do not agree that we should explicitly call people racists or bigots or whatever even if they are as that would also come out as a personal attack. I am a subscriber to "always assume good faith", as assuming bad faith can and does feed the trolls. If it helps no one then sure that comment I made can be reverted, but at the moment I think it may provide guidance to a long-term contributor, as the last thing we want is to drive away a long-term editor simply because they wrote a couple of things that were taken the wrong way.

In other words, yes I agree a forced break is warranted (and the other admins do too), no I do not agree that we should drive away an otherwise-productive editor. It might take a year, two years for this risk of disruption and personal attacks to go away, or it might never happen. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey hey, I am willing to discuss. If there are any problems with what I am doing on that talk page, please let me know. I do not mean any trouble to anyone, really I don't. I only want to help. If what I am writing is stirring up unnecessary drama then I'll drop the topic and move on to something else. If editors should really leave this Talk page alone then why isn't the talk page protected? Also, if that is the case you should move back to this revision, not just remove that one comment. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am pretty sure reverting does not get rid of the ping, in fact it generates a second one provided the revert was not a bot. I know because I have had my talk page blanked, edited, vandalized, etc. and each time I get a ping, including when it is reverted by someone other than myself or a bot. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If you were needing a laugh..

Check out this. LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Hi Bbb23,

I saw that you have undone my edit on the user page "Otolemur crassicaudatus". You have also sent me a warning stating that I have vandalized their user page. I do not believe I vandalized it, as all I did was add the year that they closed the account, 2008, which was stated in the logs. I do not believe it was vandalism, unless it is not allowed to edit retired Wikipedians' user pages to insert more information. TinGamerTV (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit any one's userpage other than your own. You also edited an administrator's userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Lansdowne (band)

Hi,

Can you undelete this page and send it to draftspace or WP:USERFY it for me? dannymusiceditor oops 02:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I can, but the last state of the article (it was deleted multiple times) is a big nothing. It has a short paragraph and a poorly formatted list of the band members as of 2013. Nothing else in the article, including sources, external links, nothing. I'm not sure why you want to work on it, but you'd be better off creating it from scratch. If you nonetheless want me to restore it to draft space, let me know. Sorry for the delay in responding to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I like the band, and want to see if I can make something, if anything, of it. Long shot, I know, but let's see what happens. The band members list may be a good starting point, so let's keep it. dannymusiceditor oops 01:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, done: Draft:Lansdowne (band). Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

RE: November 2022 (JJMC89)

Hello,

You just put something on my talk page regarding the deletion of one of my comments on JJMC89's talk page. Could you please tell me or link me to a page that tells me how to be more civil? And, if possible, a page in which I can report vandals, as I am unaware of one.

Thank you :) Greeny908 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You accused another editor of vandalism for an edit made in 2017 by the user's bot. Even taking into account your inexperience as an editor at Wikipedia, surely you can see that your accusation was at best uncivil. There is a page to report vandals, but (1) reporting JJMC89 as a vandal would be disruptive to the point of your being sanctioned and (2) you have insufficient experience to report anyone as a vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. After noticing that it was a bot and learning what a Wikipedia bot actually is, I've come to a conclusion to the cause and will make a more civil, good-faith attempt to inform JJMC89. Feel free to remove my new talk page post should you find something wrong with it. Greeny908 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Your new post is perfectly civil. I don't think it was necessary, but I see no reason to remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

MoviesandTelevisionFan

Given this and the attitude expressed there by two New Page Reviewers that it's not part of their function at AfC to see that article meet a basic standard of quality before moving them into mainspace, perhaps it would be a good idea to bock MaTF from draftspace as well. True, their writing has improved a little, but they still seem to be unable to write an entire short article in appropriate English, as evidenced by their three new articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Also note Draft:Kenneth Osterberger which I had to untangle. As the ANI discussion continues, it seems that the AfC folks are reluctant to keep articles out of mainspace on the grounds that they are atrociously written. Given that, I'd say that the only remaining solution is a draftspace block for MaTF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. The thread at ANI has gotten very messy (unsurprising). The detour into how AfC works is, in my view, mostly a distraction. Whether AfC needs to be changed, which would be major, should be a separate topic and not so intertwined with what needs to be done about MaTF. As for a pblock of draft space, I see that (now) as pointless. If MaTF cannot edit article or draft space, practically speaking there's nothing left for them to do as I don't see them as having other interests. So, if there were support for a draft space pblock or I were to unilaterally take that action, it might as well be an indefinite site-wide block. At this point I'm not willing to take any unilateral action. What I think is best is to refocus the ANI thread back to MaTF, make a specific proposal for a particular sanction (or, if absolutely necessary, alternative proposals for different sanctions - always harder for an admin to close a multi-pronged proposal), and then let editors !vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for considering my suggestion, I appreciate it. In the face of determined opposition to any basic minimum standard of quality, I'm dropping the entire matter. MaTF can create poor articles to their heart's content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Do I detect a note of frustration? :-) I know the feeling.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I certainly know that you do! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Collapse at Edit warring

Sorry, I thought I'd help by adding the template as it's unusual that a discussion develops after an admin had made a decision. Again, sorry. RF354 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, but you'd be surprised how often post-decision discussions occur at ANEW; indeed, it's quite common and sometimes (unfortunately) very protracted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Page deleted - Wikipedia notability

I don't know why, but you have deleted the page I have created I'm working to make a better Wikipedia, and I solve articles problems everyday, There are some articles from two years ago with 1-2 refrence and didn't deleted but this page that I have created have Wikipedia in two other languages I have a question now, If I translate again the topic next month, will the translation remain or that will be deleted too? Up to next month I will be able to translate topics to English Zeytoonwiki (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing articles about yourself is not a good idea, and persisting in doing so may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
No dear it is not about me, I mean another topics or this topic
If I translate from another language to English, will it remain or will again face notability problem and will be deleted?
There are mich topics in persian that didn't translated yet Zeytoonwiki (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about a block

Hi Bbb23. I've had your block of User talk:Poorva12303 brought to my attention, But User talk:Poorva12303 is continuously rolling back my edits. So, what can i do ? Thank you. MT731 (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What block? I don't know what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I about a list of over one million urban agglomerations in India. MT731 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Sir, please forgive me and will not do it again and again. MT731 (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this to Bbb23 or to DatGuy, per your talk page? Sarrail (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit Undo

Hello. While I do not want to be overly aggresive or deliberately come at you for a simple action, may I please know why my edit at the article Doret, was undone? I saw nothing wrong with it. I simply wanted to expand the already [poorly-written article and even provided a full-fledged citation for my supposed claim I'd appreciate why you did it. Best regards and have a great rest of your day. Wikipedian10282 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an article but a disambiguation page. There was nothing "poorly written" about it. I reverted your edits because (1) the added part was unreliably sourced and (2) it was messy. I looked at your edits since you created this account. What other accounts have you used at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
By what means do you define it as "messy"?
This is my only account, I do not edit on any another accounts. Additionally, it was my fault to declare it as "poorly-written", I meant the page was a stub, lacking information and citations. Wikipedian10282 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, my page was deleted from sandbox. Can I please have my page back? I am working on an assignment for University and had no intention of updating Wikipedia. I do not have another copy and was not aware that working drafts could be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KN2022 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your assignment?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
My assignment is to select a topic related to the brain and create a wikipedia page. Information regarding the assessment can be found here https://www.bangor.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate-modules/PPP-4005 KN2022 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Was the assignment just to create a page on Wikipedia, or was it to eventually create a live article?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It was just to create a Wikipedia page; the page was not ever meant to go live. Our module organiser marks the page within the sandbox. We have been explicitly asked not to submit the page for review, or for it to go live. KN2022 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Is your organiser working with a liasion here at Wikipedia? It sounds like they are trying to work outside of the systems we have in place here. For instance, User:Ian (Wiki Ed) does some coordination of wiki-educational courses. You can see some information with regards to this on their user page. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I will email my module organiser and ask her for this information, and get back to you. I just need to know if there is any point in trying to get my work back; if there isn't point in trying, I can use this time to re-start my assignment and keep it safe in a word document which can't be deleted by others KN2022 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @UtherSRG.
@KN2022, can you suggest to your instructor to post at the Education Noticeboard about their assignment? I believe there are people at Wikimedia UK who support class assignments (much as the organisation I work for does in the US and Canada). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
My module organiser has replied, 'We don’t have it via their Wikipedia edu classes (we used to, but they have changed the system and made it a lot more complicated), though it is not forbidden to have people (students or not) using Wikipedia the way we do. I had some conversations, a few years back, with their staff, but that was a while ago'.
If I could please have my work returned to me, so that I can send it to her in a word document and complete the assignment, I would be very grateful. KN2022 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not willing to restore your sandbox, but the other administrators who've commented here (thank you, btw), may be willing to come to some sort of arrangement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Without your organiser posting to the board as Ian suggested above, I'm not willing to do this, either. Per your own admission, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. There are reasons the educational system here has changed, and your organiser should have verified that what they asked you to do was kosher by current standards, policies, and practices. Also, please don't copy-paste this to my talk page. That was uncalled for. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @UtherSRG and Ian (Wiki Ed): Just a heads up that at WP:RFU Graeme Bartlett restored the sandbox "unilaterally", apparently because he didn't think it qualified as a "web host". Forum/admin shopping works!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, we should have pointed to this discussion there hours ago. Ah well. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You guessed right

I blocked another of his socks last night. If he wants to go edit Bharatpedia, that's fine by me :) Girth Summit (blether) 14:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Never even heard of Bharatpedia. I'm glad they're happy about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, my page was deleted from sandbox. Can I please have my materials back that you deleted? I do not have another copy and was not aware that working drafts could be deleted. Thank you. MichelePadua (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on your obvious WP:COI, I don't think that's a good idea. You might find an administrator who's willing to e-mail it to you. I don't e-mail users.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please undelete it for one more day, so that I can copy my work and not have to lose months of intellectual materials? It was a lot of work, and because the page was deleted only 18 minutes after its "speedy" nomination, I was afforded to opportunity to contest which seems unfair. I am happy for you to delete this preliminary draft from my sandbox again tomorrow. In fact, I will even delete the draft myself after I have preserved the work. Thank you in advance for your decency in allowing this courtesy. MichelePadua MichelePadua (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please confirm receipt of the above request. It would be reasonable to undelete my page briefly. Do I take it that I must instead lose all of this hard work? MichelePadua (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Caresgenius

Hi Bbb23, is the block of Caresgenius compatible with the September 2022 blockevidence RfC? If not, could you take the necessary steps behind the scenes to make it become compliant? Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(and is "to make it become X" correct English? 😅) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Sorry, I never answered your English question. It's a bit awkward. I would trim it to "make it compliant".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that really sounds better. Of course, my idea was that theoretically/technically you wouldn't be the person actually doing so; you'd just make that process happen. A complicated and unnecessary clarification, I admit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Could you maybe summarize what that RfC says? It's kinda long and I'm unaware of it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. The short summary is "non-functionaries have never really been, but are now explicitly not, authorized to block based on off-wiki evidence". As such evidence is the usual evidence behind "undisclosed paid editing" blocks, it's quite an unexpected and far-reaching clarification of a community consensus we had apparently interpreted incorrectly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and, to clarify what I'm thus asking for, I'm hoping for the block to be converted to a checkuser/oversight/ArbCom block instead of simply being lifted. I'm not concerned about the user being blocked as I do trust your judgement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't block based on off-wiki evidence. In any event, subsequently Firefly tagged the user as a sockmaster. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caresgenius/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is a lack of disclosure and there was no outing, a cheekily nitpicky response could now be "so there wasn't any actual evidence at all" ;) I hope you'd forgive me; I do see the red flags.
Ah, I had seen neither the tagging nor the SPI, sorry. All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Nitpicky: I think you want to say "I hope you'll forgive me". Conditional tense is wrong in this instance. Also, as long I'm grading your grammar, in my view it should be "cheeky", not "cheekily", as the word modifies response, not nitpicky.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
😄 This is wonderful, please keep doing this when you notice me writing strange English. I had actually written "you'll" and miscorrected myself! "Cheeky", ah! Hm. I'd have written "frech haarspaltende Antwort" in German as the nitpicking itself is cheeky! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Haha! "miscorrected myself" is a wonderful phrase! I think sometimes non-native speakers come up with fascinating uses of certain words. My mother-in-law used to say masticate instead of chew. It's not that she was wrong, but no native speaker would say that. Masticate is a technical term for the action of chewing. Of course, if you look it up in the dictionary, masticate does mean chew, so she said it was obvious that I was wrong. As for your German phrase, doesn't mean a thing to me. My German is limited to a small number of operatic phases from listening to Wagner and Richard Strauss.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Please undo speedy deletion of ECNL / Elite Clubs National League

I'm trying to reinstate this page. Here's an entire article -- today -- from the Washington Post: Where Girls Compete But Men Rule

ECNL is heavily referenced in the Yates Report.

95% of all female soccer players at NCAA Division I's Power 5 (Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC) were recruited from ECNL clubs. > 75

Across all NCAA Division 1 schools, the #'s are roughly 75% or more.


PLEASE UNDO DELETION.


PeteWL (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No. ECNL was deleted in July 2022 per WP:G4. In October you requested undeletion at WP:REFUND. It was "not done" and you were told you could ask me, go to WP:DRV, or recreate the article on your own. Also, the content of the article before deletion was very short, meaning recreation by you should not be a big deal. I have no opinion on the notability of the article, but if you feel it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then I suggest you create it as a draft and take it through WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about a block

Hi Bbb23. I've had your block of User talk:Poorva12303 brought to my attention, But User:Poorva12303 is continuously rolling back my edits. So, what can i do ? As per official census table of Government of India. There are 53 urban agglomerations in India with a population of 1 million or more as of 2011. Thank you. MT731 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You've been here before about the same thing, and I couldn't even follow what you said. Please stop pestering me about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Mohammed106 (again)

Hello, Bbb23. I strongly suspect that banned user Mohammed106 (talk · contribs) (blocked by you last year for disruptive editing) is active again, this time as Lamise2006 (talk · contribs). — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 06:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to file a report at WP:SPI with evidence. I don't see enough similarities to block after a brief investigation of their edits. Although neither writes well, Mohammed106 writes much worse than Lamise. The article intersection is slight. Lamise has done a fair number of moves whereas Mohammed did not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a SPI report. Also, I would say that article intersection becomes more obvious, when compared with the activities of two other socks of Mohammed – Lazer106 (talk · contribs) and Hamody15 (talk · contribs). — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 23:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
These two looks rather suspicious as well, with certain similar editing patterns, especially when it comes to diplomatic lists – Ilham Faturrahman 2003 (talk · contribs) and CarlTheCoincleaner (talk · contribs). — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of ohammed106 or of Ilham Faturrahman 2003. My edits are chiefly in lists of diplomatic missions since I work in one. Unlike Ilham Faturrahman 2003, I give sources for my edits to the best of my ability. I do not, for instance, also assume that a diplomatic mission in a certain country has non-resident accreditation to neighboring countries just because they are all in the same geographic locale. CarlTheCoincleaner (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Keilyllí de la Mora

I find your decision biased. The text was about a real activist imprisoned for the second time.Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What makes this person notable Clare Negrini?Xx236 (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whatever my decision was, it was not biased, and, from my point of view, your statement that it was constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3959196 Does UN mak enotable? Xx236 (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If you wish, I'll restore the article and move it to draft space for you to work on making it notable, but only if you promise to use WP:AFC rather than move it yourself into article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

reverted edit

See that you reverted my edit and said not the right venue. Where is the right venue? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained my revert to you, but I've been super busy IRL. I glanced at the Cranbrook School, Sydney article, and it seems to me to be a content dispute that should be resolved on the article Talk page if possible. If the other editor - or any editor for that matter - doesn't respond, then I suppose you can leave the material in the article. However, if they battle with you over it, edit-warring may result in blocks, so to protect yourself, you shouldn't revert, to be safe, more than twice in a 24-hour period. At that point, you'd have to seek a consensus to add the material on the article Talk page. IMO, the burden of seeking that consensus is on you, not the other editor, especially considering the controversial nature of what you're adding.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I tried to resolve it on the talk page. How do I get consensus if no one replies to the Talk page? I don't mind that the consensus is on me - it is controversial which is why it's so important that it's stays. Anti Semitism shouldn't be brushed under the carpet. Saying this, one shouldn't be allowed to remove sourced material simply because one doesn't like the substance of it. This makes me wonder if the editor continually deleting the content has an undeclared COI? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw your edit on the Talk page. As I already said, if no one responds, you can leave the material in but not edit war over it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I went to the noticeboard...I have no interest in edit warring, but if he keeps deleting it, what options do I have? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
He just deleted it again. What should I do? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for bothering you when you're busy with one million more important things, but which is the best noticeboard to take this discussion to? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is any administrative noticeboard that is appropriate for your content dispute. You can consider the various options in dispute resolution. If you have more questions as to what to do (you've exhausted me), you could try the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Will do. Thank you for all your help, but more so your patience! ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert sock

Hello Bbb23! I saw your latest edit in Template:Linguistic groups of the constitutionally recognised official languages of India. What you have done (reverting sock) is correct but the term that the sock edited is also correct. I don't want to intervene between you two's edits. But please rectify the correct term "Kannadigas" (for the people who speak "Kannada"). The reason I don't want myself to involve is because the edit conflict is relevant to sock puppet. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the template to correct any mistakes I introduced. My revert was pursuant to WP:BANREVERT and can be undone or modified by any editor. Not to worry. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock report

Hi, Bbb23. What do you mean by your edit summary, "Restored revision 1121997616 by Vanjagenije (talk): Beyond repair - file a report following instructions)? I already filed a report. The editor replied. What do you mean by "beyond repair"? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

SPI reports are structured in a very specific way. Therefore, when you file one, you must follow the instructions at WP:SPI. You obviously did not, and therefore it was a mess. Sometimes, when it's just a little off, it can easily be fixed; yours was too hard. It's a bit like filing reports incorrectly at WP:AN3, and an administrator will mark the report as "malformed", except there is no such designation at SPI. Another editor has since filed the report properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I followed the directions but didn't submit the form. Thanks for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Tulsi Kumar Dua (redirect)

I marked this page for deletion since the redirect doesn't make any sense as it is redirecting the page belonging to one person to some other person of the same family. What's the right way to get this redirect deleted if this isn't the way? I saw you reverted my proposal for deletion.

Smarter1 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion - 97.112.213.83

Hey Bbb23, just heads up this IP is clearly ANOTHER block evasion of 198.70.2.200, making the same edits on Ricardo López (stalker). Just letting you know as the blocking administrator. I did request page protection, which has been actioned! Have a good day Tommi1986 let's talk! 15:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi @Bbb23, I recently attempted to post an edit warring report on the administrators' noticeboard, but it looks like I botched it. Could you help me fix the problem, so that the instance of edit warring can be addressed? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nasir Chaudhry

Fair enough, this needed deleting but you'll need to early close the AfD as a consensus close which also supports WP:SALTing. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've salted both the article and the draft as requested at the AfD, but I'd rather let someone else close it. Usually, someone comes along; even a non-admin closure is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Block IP

Hi, Based on my observation on bnwiki, I think they are back again here on enwiki: Special:Contributions/202.134.14.156, Special:Contributions/202.134.13.135. I observed many similarity, here are two example:

1. Months ago this bnwiki's and arwiki's article was heavily edited by the them (103.230...). And yesterday Uli al-amr was edited by an IP. I know this might be anyone but 202.134.14.156's behaviour on bnwiki matches with User:Lazy-restless (e.g. interest on Salafi movement, Template:Salafi & related). They also have habit of cross wiki editing.

2. On bnwiki they are pushing an article created by them (e.g. https://w.wiki/64gv). Months ago they even tried same thing here on enwiki, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak-Bangla language.

If possible, please block the IPs. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected Socks

I am wondering if there are any known typical behaviors of socks. I have observed a pattern of some detected socks which before having been blocked attempted made/or attempted to hide themselves behind monotone, repetitive edits and only later began to edit in the preferred area where they eventually got into trouble and subsequently were blocked. An example would be adding short descriptions. I see now one that does another task, which is useful work on wikipedia but I suspect they eventually get into trouble. Have you observed a similar pattern?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I generally don't find abstract questions like these very useful, but if I understand you properly, you're referring to WP:GAMING, which is something some socks do. It might help if you would give me some concrete examples.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I see there are more requests on action at your talk page which was not my aim. I searched for some advice into identifying socks by their behavioral habits and wasn't satisfied near WP:SOCKS. So I wondered if you could help. But now I found WP:SIM and was satisfied. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please help

Now I've got a scathing message from 166.182.248.126] that reads:

  • Congratulations Brian K Tyler you still don't care about bringing back present back for Tweety and Daffy Duck articles which is Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety. You Have No respect to Jeff Bergman. Brian since you want to get your facts right, I really want to ask why did you hate and disrespecting to Jeff Bergman and Jeff Bergman's characters? I really want to know why you think Jeff Bergman hasn't reportedly voice a character for a while and why your facts think Jeff Bergman isn't doing the characters anymore. Brian why are you torturing Jeff Bergman are you really trying to think we should stick with at least Two or three of the most recent productions and projects in order says which you think Jeff Bergman quit or something, You Really Think two current voice actors for Tweety Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza and one current voice actor for Daffy Duck Eric Bauza are really going to help us understand that Jeff Bergman is not doing the characters anymore. I really want to know is why are you torturing Jeff Bergman like this? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

LTA & block evasion

Hi, i'm sorry for disturbing you again. A bnwiki wiki CheckUser found following are sock of Mostly shoaib and blocked them as Sockpuppet (bnwiki SPI): Trilokadiponglar Bhilku, Sourabhossianrabbi, মাইনুল ইসলাম খোকন, MoviegeekSouthAsia, Rezaul Haque Shumon and Sm Fahim Ban. They are also actively editing this wiki. If possible please block them here as well. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like all of the accounts have been blocked by Zzuuzz except Sm Fahim Ban. I'm assuming they saw your post here and maybe that one was overlooked?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
In a roundabout way. It's a long and tedious, indeed rather horrible in so many ways, process. I will say, although probably likely, that one has not jumped out to me yet. It may never do so, so one might want to look at what they're behaviourally up to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup, I can't pin that account, even though the bnwiki CU did, I'm not seeing it. I'll pro-forma an SPI in a bit. On the bright side, looking at that one closely did confirm it with two other accounts you may be interested in: Jhingephul and Anamul Haque Sayem b, and that links together with the author of this. Again I don't see enough behaviour to link the two parties, but there might be some connections somewhere... -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz, Something must be going on somewhere. Nuhash Humayun (created by User:Trilokadiponglar Bhilku) was deleted some hours ago and now another sleeper account started editing here. Looks like content added by this sleeper account matches with deleted version. Can you check? Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked that one as a likely sock (per Mostly shoaib), actually a bit more than likely. The other lot I've blocked as socks of each other. I mean it's possible that both lots are related, but there's an awful lot of technical noise outside of what I've been able to determine. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Article deleted from mainspace per G5 is still available as a draft

Hello Bbb23. I ntoiced that you deleted Nuhash Humayun from mainspace under G5. It still exists as a draft at Draft:Nuhash Humayun so I wanted to check with you to see if the person who created it is also a sock or not. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. Just figured I'd ask you first since the mainspace article was deleted under G5 which made me suspicious of the draft. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Mousetrap protection

I was wondering why you declined my request to increase the protection level on The Mousetrap. The film is famously known for its twist ending's request to not be revealed, and as such editors constantly remove it despite the policies against it. We've had such an incident happen today, and increasing the protection on the page would stop it from happening. I have a draft of an edit request to make an edit notice on my sandbox if you'd prefer that. RteeeeKed💬📖 03:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has had pending changes protection for years. I see no justification for increasing the protection to semi. As for an editnotice, as an administrator, I would reject your request to create an editnotice. I don't know why you're so intent on this, but I suggest you find something else to focus on.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

HugoAcosta9

I misspoke - User:HugoAcosta9 didn't edit my talk page - he pinged me 5 times today with their IP edits. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'm not sure why we wouldn't mention it on their talk page, given it just happened. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. What would be best is for you to create a record at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HugoAcosta9. There are at least two IPs involved, the one who pinged you, Special:contributions/187.156.98.86, and the one already blocked by Star Mississippi, Special:contributions/2806:108E:24:B52A:0:0:0:0/64.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
As there's no indication that the IP number is static, I'm not sure that's worth the trouble. Also, I'm more interested in redemption than further punitive actions, especially given they appeared to be a valuable editor, whose crime was compounding too much battleground behaviour in AFD of good articles they were involved with. And then going the full Monty. Had the systemic problems in AFD not existed, and the AFDs been well attended, the situation wouldn't have arose.
Can you restore the talk page edit you deleted? I think it remains relevant, and should be communicated to our editor. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The user is a disruptive sock who continues to disrupt the project by block evasion. I am not interested in an editor (you or anyone else), no matter how well-intentioned, telling him about "apologizing" on his Talk page, especially when talk page access was revoked. The point of making a record has nothing to do with whether the IP is static - it's making a record at the case of continuing socking, which will count heavily against them if they should ever decide to request an unblock. I've now blocked the 187. IP, and I'll consider whether to file a report myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
They became a disruptive sock after our own policies and procedures failed. The fall-out of which is still ongoing. Why wouldn't WP:STANDARD apply? Please restore the text to the page. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The standard offer is almost always available, but it starts 6 months after their last socking, whether it's with a named sock or with IPs. Nonetheless, even though I don't "approve", I've restored your Talk page post as I don't think it's fair for me to insist that you can't express your opinion on his Talk page. I also should say that I appreciate your not reverting it yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect it will take more than 6 months at this rate ... sigh. Nfitz (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Issue with an editor

I hope you don't mind if I ask this here, since it's not quite something that rises to a noticeboard-level issue. There's a user, UTLisobel (talk · contribs) who has been adding Template:Commons category and Template:Archival records to various articles. Their username implies an association with the University of Toronto, and all the archive links they're adding are from that school and they are certainly a SPA only focusing on adding links from that school. That's not really the issue I'm seeing though, it's that the Commons categories they're adding are more often than not links to Commons categories that do not exist. Sometimes even the archival records template they add doesn't actually link to anything. I've asked them a couple of times to please stop and check what they're adding before they add it and to not add these templates when they're not linking to an actual working link, but they have not responded and are instead continuing in alphabetical order down what I can only assume is a list they have of names. They're only on the letter C after however many such edits and are not communicating or adjusting what they're doing, so it's potentially going to create a very large list of edits that need to be made to check and remove these links to these non-existent (or inaccurate) categories. It's certainly not vandalism but it's a minor thing that's going to add up over hundreds of articles, what should I do in this situation? Thanks for any advice you can give. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh - you are correct, I am associated with U of T. Apologies for not replying, I was waiting to hear from my supervisor how to respond. Once I saw your comments I have refrained from adding Template:Commons category when there isn't one- I was using a code produced by our IT people at University of Toronto Libraries, and didn't know that was something I could remove for the code to work or was linking to commons categories that did not exist.
However, I do need to add the "archives at" boxes and have been fixing many older boxes that had broken links. In order to know if the link is broken, I need to first publish it to check; if its broken, I go Wikidata and fix the "archives at" statement. It's a process that takes a few steps and a few minutes.
Thank you for your patience as I and my department figure out how to best make this information available. - Isobel UTLisobel (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@UTLisobel: At a minimum, you need to declare your WP:COI on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that! -- UTLisobel (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)So far you have failed to do so, and have instead done yet still more spamlinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you think?

I was considering pushing the button myself, but after looking at their talk page and saw your copyvio warning, I'm thinking, you know, you're better about this sort of thing. So I thought I'd put it on your radar and see what you thought. - jc37 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what "button" you mean, but that attack came before Ponyo's block, so unless the user persists post-block, I wouldn't do anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That was the "button" I meant. Sorry for not being clearer.
Looks like User:Ponyo beat us both to it...
Thank you for looking into it.
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you reverted my edit on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

please block IP hopping editor on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thrash_metal&action=history --FMSky (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You have two choices: file a request for semi-protection if there's sufficient recent activity or file a new, properly structured report at WP:ANEW if 3RR has been violated recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
ok why was the first report even ignored to begin with? --FMSky (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea, but not all reports are actioned before they are archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

DefThree

Hi, you left a comment on DefThree's talk-page [2]. You correctly suspected that this user is not a new-user. I have filed many SPI's against this user. I strongly suspect this is Belteshazzar who has been blocked many times. You may or may not be interested but here is a link to the SPI [3] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Help for retrieving deleted page

Hi, I would like to know how to retrieve my deleted article. I tried using deleting administer. But I get No matching items in log. I feel like I am missing something here. Could you please guide me here. Thank you in advance. Adaline Lefe (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:UNDELETE. Additionally, I see that your draft was deleted per G11 of the CSD criteria. Make sure not to violate promotion and advertising policies. Sarrail (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Request to re-open Freoh reported by Jtbobwaysf on Noticeboard

User:Freon has just widened the domain of his edit warring to the FAC currently in progress for James Madison. If you could re-open the Noticeboard filed by Jtbobwaysf for 24 hours, then I could add the links for edit warring by him since the edit warring is now active on the FAC page for Madison currently in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to create a new report (with real diffs, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Like a ninja

You spotted that sock of Buzzards Watch Me Work in record time. Thanks for your hard work! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Miss France 2023

Wanted to flag this for you. I know you blocked Rio0601 (talk · contribs) for sockpuppets and edit warring on Miss France 2023, but now that he has been blocked a new account just sprung up making the same edit he was making. It's Gillesmourey (talk · contribs), and I noticed the account only has three total edits, the last of which was made in 2018. Could be coincidental but thought I'd flag for you in case you want to handle in some way. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed, but I wasn't convinced the user was a sock. In addition to the sporadic editing history, 3 edits to en.wiki in 11 years, the user has 27K edits on fr.wiki. Rio0601 was blocked for socking and then later successfully appealed their block, leaving their other account, Asb.9301, blocked. It seems to me that Gillesmourey would have been discovered at the time, or even now as they are actively discussing the article at fr.wiki, along with Rio0601 and others, including Noelastardu54, who has made one edit to article on en.wiki recently and others last month. Still, I do not think filing a report at WP:SPI would be unjustified. I'd request a CU if you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Telephone call recording laws RPP

Hey Bbb23. I noticed you declined my RPP request per reasons that there had not been sufficient recent vandalism; this seems reasonable. However, this is a lesser-known page, and looking at the page history, the majority of the past 50 edits have been unconstructive. I should have specified that they were edit tests, and not major vandalism, though. One edit in particular had gone days without noticing, and I took the chance when I came across the page to revert it. Though you are correct that there has not been very recent disruptive activity, a lot has been and I think semi-protection would help lessen the load on anti-vandalism reverters and encourage content creation. Thoughts? Thanks. Silikonz (alt)💬 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Bbb23, could you please elaborate on your take on this? Just confirming this as my alt. Thanks! :) Silikonz💬 01:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to semi-protect the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please expand on why you think so? Looking at the amount of test edits coming up very frequently in the past few weeks, (mostly as the only edits to the article then, consecutive tests) and the amount of spam that gets added to the talk page regularly contribute to my stance on this as a worthy candidate for semi-prot. A day after my edits, I only caught this problematic modification via my watchlist. Not many editors have been able to keep up with the spam on this page. Thanks. Silikonz💬 01:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Please let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit history shows most edits are minor disruption, and the page has been protected twice in the past (vandalism is ramping up again). I'm sorry if this is a small deal, I just thought filtering autoconfirmed editors would solve the spam somewhat, and was a bit annoyed by this. Thanks! :) Silikonz💬 01:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't comprehend why that would be the case when this happened just a minute ago. Thanks so much. Regardless, thanks for clarifying. Silikonz💬 02:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Charli

Hey, he is again back as Lllllu43 (talk · contribs) it seems, if i'm not mistaken (threatens to report other users...) @RoBri: and myself believe that it is indeed Charli, hope you can confirm (or deny if wrong, then sorry). Kante4 (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: I decided there was enough behavioral evidence to block, but I'm concerned about a few things. First, the account has edited at de.wiki but has not been blocked there - why? Second, are threats to report other users something that Charli 250 does? What about blanking of their Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why he has not been blocked there, will ask RoBri there. I just discovered this account today. Yes, in the past he even threatened me to report/block on my talk page and does the same to other editors aswell (example here and more). The blankings mosty occurs when myself or RoBri write him (sometimes even in German) on his talk page that he should not post here, then it gets blanked right away. Kante4 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
 Have a wonderful holiday season
filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.

Hi Bbb23, Thank you for all your contributions during the year.
I want to personally thank you for the guidance you've given me as a new reviewer, I appreciate your patience and help.
May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health.
Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927

Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello. The AN thread I had opened by mistake has already been removed by user Andrevan. Could you please restore my thread at ANI? Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore an archived thread without understanding what the problem is. Perhaps you could explain (with diffs) how it was improperly archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It was archived before even 1 admin commented on the thread. What recourse is there for dealing with editors behaving against guidelines, if admins won't bother to close or even comment in ANI cases? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23 if you can't help me, I'd like to re-open the thread myself. Please advise. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I asked you for an explanation of how it was improperly archived, and all you told me was that no administrators had commented. That in and of itself does not indicate an improper archival. There are two ways a thread is archived: one is automatic based on the time the thread has been open, and the other is because a user archived it. If the archival was automatic, you should not restore it. Instead, you'd have to start a new thread and refer (link) to the archived one. If a user archived it on their own, that might be improper depending. Again, with diffs, what happened here?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. By those criteria, the thread was not improperly archived - it went 72 hours without discussion, and was automatically archived. Knowing that now, I would open a new thread, and link to the archived one. Having admitted that, do you still require diffs of anything? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
No, there's nothing wrong with your opening a new thread, although I have no opinion on the merits of your complaint or whether it will attract the attention of admins this time. Just so you know, there are many threads that archive automatically without admin comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for your help.
That last bit sounds... problematic. I understand that admins are volunteers, and that admin time is a limited resource - both of these combined make it obvious why ANI threads might not always get an answer. Though, what more can be done in cases like this? Without getting into the specifics of my case, I've seen an editor behaving against the guideline laid out in WP:GAMING, and this behavior is causing a lot of contention in talk page discussions, and frustration among many editors. If admins don't respond to cases about disruptive users when they're brought to their attention, how else are we supposed to handle editors like this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Chihuahua Cheery Day

Cheery Day
I felt you needed a Cheery Chihuahua, they always cheer people up. Govvy (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page inadvertently deleted

Hello! It seems the talk page for Barbie Girl may have been inadvertently deleted in the ensuing cleanup. Special:Redirect/logid/140790562 indicates the page got overwritten. Please do restore it when you find the time. Thank you! Chlod (say hi!) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Please check. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks good now. Thank you as well! Chlod (say hi!) 16:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Keep on fighting the good fight. Happy holidays. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Chm-aus an honest mistake followed by an edit war?

I wanted to let you know that I made an effort to (unsuccessfully) "cool down" a new editor @Chm-aus who was quite frustrated that the first edit they worked on was immediately reverted as possible vandalism by @Materialscientist. (the "recent log" marked it as such - I was looking to attack vandalism myself and that is how I found the edit in question)

I remember when my first edit was reverted by @LilianaUwU so I asked them why and it was no big deal and everything got straightened out (I got a cookie from them and eventually slapped them with a trout - for reasons and mostly fun). IN other words there were no hard feelings and I would like to think I met a person I can appreciate, enjoy, and converse with.

Based on personality, any kind of reaction is possible and there was a bad reaction right out of the essay "Please do not bite the newcomers."

So @Chm-aus took the reversion personally, escalated into an edit war, and then followed @Materialscientist around reverting random stuff. @Chm-aus was then smacked around a bit more on their talk page. Who needs to be the adult in the room?

The initial edit was reasonable and it was made in good faith. There was nothing wrong with the edit that could not be addressed.

@Chm-aus mentioned that they were engaged in primary research and had doubts about the accuracy of several hundred articles.

The whole chronology was quite disturbing (to me personally) - rather then letting it fester I am mentioning it; I understand the imperative to protect content but the human cost seems a bit too high.

Let's be frank, the voluminous, random, and obscure content is mostly wrong anyway but who really cares. To understand what I am saying I am quoting Chm-aus "May the info for all my beetles stay incorrect." Lets not care about the content too much, it will work itself out. People are important.. way more important than the content.

In the end what was lost is at least a "new editor" and the value they might bring to the table. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your good work Andre🚐 20:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Hameln (website)

Good morning.

While I will admit that Hameln (website) wasn't a particularly well written article, as I couldn't go further beyond the original Japanese article (of which I also posted <nowiki>{{一次資料}}</nowiki>) which is also lacking in information and sources I could use, and certainly would not have been article that I would have published had it not been a translation, I do believe that the article should still exist on Wikipedia in some form. The reason why I believe so is that not only does the website have ''a'' Japanese Wikipedia article, as well as an article on both Pixpedia and Nicopedia (albeit not an independent article for the latter), as well as the fact that the website is one of the more used online novel platforms in Japan both for fanfiction and original work, and I was hoping for someone else to use the article as a springboard.

Thank you for your time.

--Jnglmpera (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Block of Gabidieppe

I'm curious why you blocked Gabidieppe when the disruption seems to have stopped? The account's last edit was before my comment on their talk page, which was left more than an hour before your block. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they "stopped" doesn't change the history of rapid disruption, promotion, and incompetence. It's kind of like someone being very disruptive and then claiming they retired, as if that solves the problem. If they request an unblock, we can review their request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me like you are describing a punitive block ("doesn't change the history"), rather than a preventative one. Perhaps I'm more willing to assume good faith, but the way I read the situation, they created an inappropriate page, were informed it was inappropriate (by Asukite), then began moving it around randomly to different namespaces and titles including "Delete this please" and "Help me please", where they replaced the redirect left after they moved it yet again with "how i delete this ?"
Obviously, this was mildly disruptive, and indicates a possible competence issue. However, once I did as they asked and deleted it, and told them the proper way to request deletion in the future, the disruption stopped. I do not see any evidence they would be disruptive in the future (or productive for that matter).
At any rate, it may not matter if they never request an unblock. They may have never edited again anyway. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment removed

You have removed my comment here. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So would you care to explain? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Did you notice do not add comments to a close[d] discussion in the edit summary on an administrator's noticeboard? I see you have been banging this drum for a long time. Please move on to avoid being mistaken for a disruptive editor unwilling to get along with other people. We have to collaborate here and having everything finish to your satisfaction will not be achievable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not cool. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you.

The reporter was unable to notify you as they are not autoconfirmed. Cheers. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I closed that XRV as not endorsed, as far as the XRV process goes that is all there is to it. If you want this to stay open longer, let me know and I'll revert the closing - but I don't expect anything useful to come out of it. — xaosflux Talk 16:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable closure to me, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Help or Advice

Happy Holidays! Can I ask for your assistance or advice regarding this issue? You warned this user Fred Zepelin to not post on my talk page (after repeated warnings and harassment). Yet, they are still posting Post here I don't want anything to do with this person, yet it's been years of this now. here Here is your warning here Any advice or direction would be appreciated. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 20:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted their edit and blocked them for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Happy New Year! Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Hello Bbb23:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusations

An account you have banned recently, User:Fulcrum0, keeps misbehaving even after their ban, by falsely accusing me now that I am the reason you banned them as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. I have never instructed you, Bbb23, to ban them as a sock. As a matter of fact, in my ANI report against that account, I have never called them a sockpuppet. The only instances where I did, were only after their ban, and as result of their ban. Their ban occurred on 23:44, 31 December 2022, and it was only half day later that I informed the AN about the development, on 11:24, 1 January 2023.

Clearly, the banned account is abusing their User Talk Page privileges to make false accusations against others editors, and this while they are waiting for their second block appeal request to be approved. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've declined their appeal. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Am i eligible for autopatrolled, senior? I had made a request on the Autopatrolled request place. Can you look into it. I will be very Happy if i got Autopatrolled user rights. It's like my dream. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me, but you have a request outstanding - an admin more experienced than I in that sort of thing will review it. As an aside, you should change your signature so it includes your actual username. It's misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay Senior, I am changing it. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I don't think "senior" means what you think it does.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion of with open proxy

I think User talk:203.115.106.84 might be a person/sock you've blocked before. Seems to have beef with you and @331dot: See diff Zinnober9 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as someone loves me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Same person here too: User talk:212.14.243.29 Thanks again for all you do, Bbb23, happy new year! Zinnober9 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
And another: User talk:95.181.164.59 Zinnober9 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This one (95) reinstated the manafesto.
If I run across others, how would you like me to report them? I don't want to bother you each time I find one, unless you'd like me to keep reporting here. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You don't have to post here just to give me a heads up. If you believe there is some action that needs to be taken, then let me know. I am curious, though: how do you even find them?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Lint. They had a tag throwing an error that no other pages had. Since the IPs were already blocked, I can't take it to AIV, the bot deletes me shortly after I post it because it sees they are already blocked and thinks there's no actions remaining, and I can't blank/G5 template them directly because they are edit war happy to restore their version of the page. Where should I take things like this instead of commenting to a recently active Admin's talk page? Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was the Righteous Croatia page removed?

It is a Croatian political party that is currently part of the Croatian Parlament.

Source link: https://www.sabor.hr/hr/zastupnici/vrkljan-milan-10-saziv-hrvatskoga-sabora HR-Biograph (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The article had no credible claim of significance (WP:A7) and was promotional (WP:G11). It appears to be a machine translation of the article you created at hr.wiki. Nonetheless, if you wish, I will move it to draft space with the understanding that you will go through the WP:AFC process and not move it back to article space on your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jacobkennedy LTA

Care to extend the block on 155.137.183.249? Pinging @Callanecc: for awareness. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They also popped up as Special:Contributions/2600:3C01:0:0:F03C:93FF:FEBB:5020. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ragesoss:, is the IP above one of your IP's? SQLQuery Me! 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
User:SQL, can you see about this, please? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't receive feedback from you regarding Hameln (website)

Before I repost what was reverted, I'd like to apolologize for causing trouble on this talk page. I did not mean to delete other people's discussions and overwrite them with my own message, and it won't happen again.

Anyways,I was hoping/wanting for you to give me feedback regarding Hameln (website). However, you didn't even bother to respond to my message and just straight up ignored me by archived my discussion. Can I please have some feedback from you regarding this article? The admin that posted the speedy deletion notification on my talk page (M.Ashraf333) directed me to discuss with you (the deleting admin) regarding this article. I know I'm sounding like a stalker here, but as I said previously, I do think this article should stay up in some form. --Jnglmpera (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries about messing up this page; I'm sure it was inadvertent. I also apologize for ignoring you at the end of December. Sometimes I see things and I intend to respond later, but I forget. In any event, might I suggest that I restore your article but in draft space. Then you can go through the WP:AFC process to get feedback on what the page needs to be moved to article space. Would that work for you?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That would work. Thank you. --Jnglmpera (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sock (but I don't know the master)

You blocked AK The WikiEditor, they're back with the incredibly original name of AK The WikiEditoror. Would you mind looking and blocking them? Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
And now Martin Monvoy 4468 is back with similar edits ([4] vs [5] on a page with three non-sock related edits. Ravensfire (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Confirmed and blocked. Hold tight and I'll try to tie all the socks to a master.-- Ponyobons mots 22:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
While I'm holding, just remember that all work and no play makes Jill a dull girl.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Here you go; Happy New Year!-- Ponyobons mots 22:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's looking at you kid (raising his glass of OJ)! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
OJ in a gin joint?-- Ponyobons mots 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Did someone say gin joint? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the gin master.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing Sulumbek of Sagopshi

Bbb23 You understand that it is he who put at least the template that the article of the blocked participant, I tried but I don’t know how it’s done (WP:G5). Sulumbek of Sagopshi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulom-Beck_Sagopshinski He changed the title of the article. Товболатов (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I declined the G5. Your zealotry is getting disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In Russian there is a template for simple deletion. They put it there without problems, I still haven’t fully learned how it’s done here, okay.--Товболатов (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are right but he creates fake satyas. let's wait CheckUser. --Товболатов (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only do I say that he writes fakes and other people write on the discussion pages of articles for example here Talk:Nazran conflict, Talk:Adermakh.--Товболатов (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

socketpuppet tylerkutschbach

socketpuppet had taken a break for a few days but has reemerged and is now vandalizing pages on en wiki again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Op233op2e Putitonamap98 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Independent Media Association

Hello! Someone who is not autoconfirmed has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Independent Media Association. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Alalch E. 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi

Thank you very much for your help to me, you just misunderstood me, I meant the blocked member. No problem, I'll stop. Nice to meet you, you are a good person.--Товболатов (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 Hello, sorry to bother you but there is a new vandal Ingush Orsthoy blocking bypass returns edits Niyskho here Abrek perhaps they are related to it WikiEditor1234567123 . Please check one last time if you can. --Товболатов (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

He is definitely connected with this group and just now became more active after blocking several accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive. --Товболатов (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential new sockpuppet

Hello @Bbb23, I believe another sockpuppet (of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive) popped up and is doing quite the damage on a few articles, please see Ingush_Orsthoy ~~~~ Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Because of the complexities in this case, you should file a new report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, I'll do that! Reiner Gavriel (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Please review my page: SF Intra-city

I have removed excess citations and linked my page to SF Express. If you could advise for more to help me get the page accepted, that would be great. Thank you. Limnewiy (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your article SF Intra-city was tagged as WP:G11, and I declined the tag, meaning it was not deleted. A much more promotional version of it, Draft:SF Intra-City, was deleted last month. Yet, you say you want to "get the page accepted". At least for the moment, it is "accepted".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick look?

Could you take a quick look at the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuhailShaji786 ? The user in question has previously been blocked for UPE and is now creating more articles with similar UPE content. I believe this requires immediate action, which is why I have brought this to your attention. Akevsharma (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Dealer07

Good afternoon, from Portugal,

maybe still a bit early to be 100% sure, but per list of contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ErmosDrousiotis) the new sock seems to be User:ErmosDrousiotis. I leave it in your capable hands.

Continue the good work, have a nice weekend! RevampedEditor (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Email trolls

Hi, just a note that a colleague of mine on the English Wikinews received an intimidating email from some troll making threats against you. This account was globally locked for unrelated reasons shortly after. Interestingly, the Internationale was included, which makes me think of a person both of us recently had negative interactions with, whom I will not name. Heavy Water (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure enough, they were posting the same rants as that troll to the German Wikisource, and acknowledging that they'd evaded your blocks of their previous accounts. Heavy Water (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It'd make it easier for me if you'd tell me the username of the blocked account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That would have been risky at the time, but it appears CerroFerro found the discussion on Wikinews anyway (that's who I was referring to). They're now boldly socking with multiple IPs and accounts imitating your username, and created a fake page for your username to insult you, which I nominated for speedy deletion. Heavy Water (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how you make a connection between the IPs at Wikinews and CerroFerro.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I just got a notification on Commons that a user named BeebBeebBeebWeebWeebThreebThreebThreeb sent me an email titled "Bbb23 truth exposed". I checked my inbox, including spam and trash, and I found no such email. - ZLEA T\C 01:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool username.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Re. Md. Saidul Islam Rana

While the master wasn't blocked until yesterday, other socks in the group (MullHiw Sikandvau, Shahzeela01, Tenderos019 Saidulislam1991) were blocked on December 1. The article was created on December 13 and would have been in violation of those blocks. Spicy (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Spicy, now deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding declination of protection in 2022–23 Super League Greece 2

Hi, I would like to clarify the situation in 2022–23 Super League Greece 2. I am requesting a protection because User:Αθλητικά (whom it might be important to view the long sockpuppetry history , as he is a well-known sockmaster) has been vandalizing 2022–23 Super League Greece 2 in the same way as he has done for 2022–23 Super League Greece and several other Greek football pages (usually Super League for older years) for which he has been reported and banned. There were at least 10 reported vandalisms of 2022–23 Super League Greece, which led to the page being extended protected until 12 February 2023. This is why he has moved to editing 2022–23 Super League Greece 2 and vandalizing it in the same way. Changing the tiebreaker criteria as he has constantly been doing with several IPs is something that could require a lot of work to revert and is very tiring. This situation with this user has been going back and forth for the last two years, and it is not improving. It has happened three times in the last month and twice in the last week in 2022–23 Super League Greece 2, and it is quite likely to happen again, as it is quite likely to happen in 2022–23 Super League Greece in the near future when it gets unprotected. I believe this is more than enough disruptive behavior not only for this page, but by this specific user as a whole. It is undeniable that it is an IP sock from User:Αθλητικά, as he is doing exactly the same edits, and has been banned in several accounts for this. I kindly suggest you reconsider the declination of protection for the sake of the page. Tranquill Komnin (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't block pages pre-emptively. However, I assume you're referring to the two edits by the IP recently. Although this master hops around a lot on IPs, so it's hard to do anything, I've blocked Special:contributions/79.107.250.0/24 for one month for block evasion. Maybe that'll help a little, although, frankly, I'm dubious. If nothing else, it makes it easier to block IPs in that range in the future and the edits are recent enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Tawakhas

Hello, Bbb23,

I see you blocked this editor and User:Sakhawatay. I also had suspicions that they might be User:Yourguidepk and were committing block evasion but I never got around to filing an SPI case today. I started doing the digging around but didn't follow through on my suspicions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: I knew that Tawakhas and Sakhawatay were the same person because the Sakhawatay account admitted it, but I hadn't spotted Yourguidepk. If I had, I would have blocked the two accounts as socks. The only reason I didn't was because Sakhawatay said they weren't going to use the Tawakhas account anymore, and I didn't feel like getting into a potential dispute about whether a sock block was warranted. However, because I felt that the person operating both accounts was interested only in promoting themself, I decided to block both accounts as promotion-only. I don't think it's necessary to re-block them, but based on what you've told me, it's pretty obvious there were three accounts, not just two, and that the owner was being disingenous, so I've tagged all three accounts. If you want to file an SPI for the record, it's up to you. Regardless, thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Heartstopper table.

Hi how come the table is not right even though there is a second series due out soon?

Thanks Adavid299 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox may be updated (-present) and a second table added when second series begins.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ?

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC) These 22 members of the 1925 cabinet meeting of NSDAP, have been listed on the German Wikipedia for several years, the 22 member numbers are each individually referenced from 22 published authors. All I have done is transferred these numbers to the English Wikipedia, and added images to them. The details of the 22 individuals, are taken directly from their existing articles on their names. As an editor for several years, I believe that cross referencing existing allowed Wikipedia articles should not be disallowed. If you wish to change the title or any of the text you are welcome. Please keep the article until this matter has been debated. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to contest your deletion, which I wish to do ? Stephen2nd (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's my mistake, and I've restored the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert at 3RR

I usually don't post to 3RR, so I'm not sure what I should do with Homosexuality in ancient Greece, so I will leave it in your experienced hands. Since you just removed my report without taking any action and I don't understand you edit summary and you left no other reply, I'll leave everything as it is since I know an admin would obviously do something if it was needed, and I posted in the first place to prevent an edit war. I'll be busy for a few days, so if something needs done you might need to contact one of the other editors in the article. Best wishes from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  00:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Congrats, you win, I'm out.  // Timothy :: talk  03:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

31 hour block

I made a pun using an ip address on the talk page of ScottishFinnishRadish. Prior to that I made an adjustment of adding (SAW) to a post I made (my router or something is using different ip's every so often for some reason) on the Islamism article talk page. The first instance was a harmless joke, but a light warning would have been enough. The other was fixing an oversight I made. A 31 hour block for disruptive edits (I'm not entirely sure how they were disruptive) seems very excessive with no warning. I don't like logging in because it's a hassle for me (it's its own thing). So, could you please explain what's going on here?

Lede or Follow (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, don't edit Wikipedia without logging in, especially if your edits are going to be trollish-appearing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) see also: logged-out sockpuppetry and good hand-bad hand accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for clearing that up. It's unfortunate to see an admin with over 14 years of experience doing this, and if that's what I can look forward to... I don't see this improving with admin experience as I understand there's a rigorous vetting process. So, that being the case, you won't have to worry about me editing Wikipedia again without logging in, or even if I am logged in, because I think I won't be editing any further. Thank you for your time.
Lede or Follow (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for getting upset and have struck out my above comments. This is a problem and I'm going to have to stop editing to avoid any more of this. If I fix the issues that cause this, maybe I can edit again (though I'm not sure if the underlying issues causing this can be fixed).

Lede or Follow (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert at 3RR

Obviously I was unclear.

Equally obviously, I am not going to argue with you on that noticeboard, or at all. I am just uncertain why I would not be notified of a matter in which I have been involved. I would appreciate it if you could help me to understand.

The main gist of my complaint is that I was not notified of *this* complaint at *this* Noticeboard, which concerns a matter I have carefully followed, and in which I have offered to help a new user. The comment about the AE complaint was merely intended to demonstrate that Trangabellam well knows that I am involved. I am all over the article talk page, for one thing, and I have discussed Minaro123, and Aryan Valley and Trangabellam's behavior there with Trangabellam so recently that it doesn't seem as though it would have slipped their mind.

I am totally unfamiliar with the workings of the 3RR board, so it's possible (as always!) that I am the one who misunderstood something. I would appreciate a clarification. I just got back from an appointment and haven't had a chance to look at the links there yet.

Was your point that it's a behavioral Noticeboard and so the issue at hand solely concerns Minaro123? If so, maybe I was off-topic, yeah. There is a much larger picture here, however, and I feel that context matters here. I had previously warned Minaro that they seemed to be trying to set him up for some sort of a block, and to refrain from giving them grounds to say he was edit-warring, so I will be telling him that that I can't help him if he doesn't listen to me. I will look at the links in the section and talk to him about whatever behavior was complained of there. As an aside, yes, there have in the past been issues of competency with Minaro, but since I got him calmed down and explained reliable sources to him, which nobody had done until then, he has been doing quite well with that, to the point of correctly pointing out that a source is not on the perennial sources list. So he is responsive, and here to build an encyclopedia, yes. English is still going to be his 6th or 7th language, but I can definitely help him with that until he finds another way to work around it.

I am not requesting any particular action on your part beyond this clarification.

But was your revert based on the belief that I was injecting a separate complaint? Should I rephrase? Just let this complaint go and help him with his appeal? Expedite the AE complaint about editors who lose an AfD then edit-war (this) article into their preferred version, which is not the one that survived AfD? Figure out whether to add to that complaint whatever went on at 3RR? And what is to be done about the point-y version of the article?

Is it appropriate to open another AfD, since the text is now completely different? I ask the latter on behalf on Minaro, since that is probably what he cares about the most in this process. I will advise him to draft an accurate version of the article meanwhile, probably off-wiki at this point, lest some sinister motive be imputed to doing so. If I had been around at the time, I would have suggested that he continue to work on it in Draft rather than publish when he did, but I was blissfully unaware of all this until I saw the article at AfD. It's been going on for quite a while though, and the provocation should definitely be considered IMHO. Somewhere.

Your input would be appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to pare this down if you want me to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mmm ok. You said that the section was not the place for my complaint. Ok, except that I am in this story? And was pinged there by one of the parties? So I am uncertain what I am did wrong specifically that I are warning me not to do again. I will be happy to refrain from anything you don't want me to do. Can we start there? Also, Minaro123 told me he doesn't want to file an appeal until after his exams, so I withdraw my questions about that. Is that better? Sorry if I was unclear. Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true that Minaro123 did ping you, but you weren't involved in the edit war, so why would you call yourself a "highly involved user" in your comments? And why should you have been notified as you said in your comment? This whole business that you have with Trangabellam has nothing to do with the edit war or the administrator's ruling, which preceded your comments. And, btw, AN3 is not like ANI. Discussions are rarely "closed" - they just eventually archive. A ruling by an admin is generally the equivalent of a closure, although editors do sometimes comment post-ruling, usually to ask for clarifications. Your comments weren't of that sort.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "edit war". I stopped reverting TB and K3 because of DS, yes. TB said discretionary sanctions did not apply. Then Minaro got topic banned as a discretionary sanction. See why I was confused? Meanwhile, since Minaro isn't going to appeal this until after his exams, the triage I was asking you to help me with becomes a lot less urgent. I'll ask Liz what I should do about the article being completely different now, then decide where and whether to take issue with what happened there. I loathe the drama boards, but it does seem kind of wrong.
I gather that you reverted me because my actions weren't being complained of and for purposes of 3RR that made me not involved? At this point I'm just trying to identify what was wrong with what I did, so I don't repeat it. If that's correct, then that is the clarification I was asking for. Thanks, and thanks also for the clarification re closing; I didn't realize that. Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
TB said discretionary sanctions did not apply. - Care to provide a diff? What I told you was that a similar article came under DS (ARBIPA) but there was no 30/500 restriction in ARBIPA. An administrator confirmed the same. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

TB, as I've said a couple of times in a couple of places now, I did not ask *you*. I asked BB to explain something to me. It involves you only peripherally and I told Bbb23 I wasn't here to argue or to ask for anything other than a clarification. I am absolutely not going to argue with you here either. Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RedesignSucksYuck

I'm concerned that we silence and block editors on sight for contributions such as this. Although the sarcastic tone is unhelpful, the editor makes several valid points with which many of us agree, though I'd have tried to phrase them more diplomatically. We have several new accounts with similar names, clearly created by regular readers for the purpose of expressing disappointment with the new skin, and there is a risk of being seen to suppress their views. Certes (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they're "clearly created by regular readers". Many have been found to be socks. Personally, I hate the new skin and have reinstated the old one, but creating new accounts with inflammatory personal-agenda usernames is not appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Five accounts seem to have some linkages, the first two of whom you blocked personally: RedesignSucksYuck, Vector2022SucksBalls, Sodthisstupiddesign, Tortuga666, and Vector2022isTrash. I can't shake the feeling that this is the same person. I thought these might be socks, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sodthisstupiddesign, but my request for a CU was declined. At the risk of seeming like I am admin-shopping, do you agree that a CU isn't warranted? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The decline was reasonable. Wouldn't surprise me, though, if a check was run but the results not disclosed. Only your friendly CheckUser knows for sure. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Some of these have indeed been checked. Vector2022SucksBalls and Vector2022IsTrash were checked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vector2022isTrash/Archive, where they were found to be unrelated to each other. RedesignSucksYuck was apparently checked per [6]. I don't think it's reasonable to run a CU on every new account complaining about the design for the reasons I outlined at the SPI, though there may be grounds to check them for other reasons. For example, I think it was fair to check Mr. "Trash" against Mr. "Sucks Balls" based on the evidence presented. Spicy (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Spicy, that's all good to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar

Hi, you blocked Belteshazzar's IP for several days [7] on the 17th January. Unfortunately this user has just gone back on it again after their other IPs were blocked for several months. I don't think it is worth me wasting time to file an SPI because this is obvious block evasion. Is it possible the block can be extended on that IP? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked a week this time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for you to look at this person.

Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at User:Dunny123b? He keeps reverting edits made by Charredshorthand. -- Grapefanatic (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GeneralNotability's handled this. Tails Wx 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
What about User:Rubinakafans? They seem to be making false edits and has a conflict of interest in a page that they frequently edit.-- Grapefanatic (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Notified. Tails Wx 19:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Hope you have a nice week.-- Grapefanatic (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Destiny Mendez2111

This user Does Not Appear To Be Here To Build An Encyclopedia (Hundred Acre Wood capitalisation!) but not in a way WP:ARV will do anything about. I'm inclined just to ignore them but there's a really creepy edge to their edits; see, for example, [8]. Thanks for taking a look? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Dunno about "creepy", but they are certainly NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess it was the fact that, of all the utterly random IP edits from 2019 they chose to castigate me for reverting, it was on Quickie (sex), with the request, "if you want to talk about this just say something". Augh, nope! Thank you for your help, as always! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fourteenth First Edit Day!

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) 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional Sock

Mind banning this addtional sock: Dunny125b TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Page HYLT

who created the page?! but i think HYLT should redirect to How You Like That, as a shortcut for people who can't type fast and are blinks Jishiboka1 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

UTRS

User:witman21 has an open UTRS appeal. To my statement "The only way you're going to be unblocked is if you explicitly agree to not attempt to create an article about yourself or add your name to any articles" their response was "Hello, I agree to this. I understand why this is wrong as well." Any thoughts on an unblock? I'd be happy to reblock in a second if they started hassling anyone about the article again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

They were pretty disruptive before I revoked TPA last August. What would they edit about? Can you provide a link to the appeal, please?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
68640. Yes, I could see that they were being pretty tiresome. I sent them an additional question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Draftification of Frank Chryst

May I ask what led you to determine that this wasn't actually a hoax? It seems completely made up. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's apparently a fictious character on a podcast.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I kinda doubt that. THe user may have just completely made that fact up. Reading it seems like it's completely absurd. "He rides a magical electric Vespa scooter with a side car shaped like a coffin. He bends space and time and can appear anywhere around the world. He carries a symbolic scythe and covers his 206 dry bones with a robe from Mervyns, but could wear a suit if he wanted. He wears Godzilla foot slippers." this all just sounds like something the user made up. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
See Radio from Hell and the bottom of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah alright. I'm not sure how much of the information on that article is actually real and how much is just made up, but they do seem to at least exist. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
It's now a draft, and unless it is written properly, reliably sourced, and the reviewer thinks it's notable, it won't ever become an article...unless the author pushes it back into article space on their own, which would be disruptive if it occurs.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes I tend to refer to drafts as Articles still since they are technically still articles, just not in mainspace. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IMDb

You deleted all my work on the page Color-blind casting

The reasoning was that IMDb was not a valid source. It is considered "disputed", not "inappropriate" Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, when it comes to the existence of movies and their cast, which is all I was using it for. If I replace it all with Rotten Tomatoes, will the edits get deleted again? I think it is ironic that Wiki admins are deleting sources where users, not "experts" are allowed to make changes...


Nonperson1 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nonperson1: IMDb is an unreliable source which is why it was removed by Bbb23, because it contains user-generated content, websites such as these are generally not allowed to be used as a source, except as a tertiary source in addition to other reliable hard sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think this is specious reasoning. News sources and magazine are considered "hard sources"? Paper writers are practically never "experts" in the areas which they write. Science journalism is one of many areas of journalism wherein the writers usually hold no scientific credentials, do not understand anything about which they write, and just regurgitate press releases from companies. Papers never take time to independently investigate anything anymore, and rarely make corrections. I have tried on multiple occasions to get major publishers of "news" to correct factual and conclusion errors in their pieces, providing them objective evidence that it is absolutely an error. They never corrected any of them. Journalists have a long history of politically and financially motivated writing that is a complete embarrassment - do I even need to provide a list of examples? The entire wisdom of wiki was that it bypassed experts and relied on mass public knowledge, at least so I thought. What would constitute a "hard source" for the mere existence of a film, if IMDb (which my TV acting brother uses for info) doesn't count, a photo of the movie poster?
Lastly, if something is poorly sourced, why is the edit method to simply delete the entire entry, rather than dispute the citation/source within the article? Nonperson1 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
See WP:RS WP:RSP WP:V for info on acceptable sources. Unsourced or improperly sourced material may be challenged and deleted. User-submitted content doesn't cut the mustard. If it's wrong in RS, it'll be wrong in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is a helpful essay. Andre🚐 18:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User with possible CIR issues

Hello Bbb23! I've recently encountered an IP (the IP appears to be fairly static atm) who appears to have serious WP:CIR issues regarding their English. It appears that English is not their first language, and they seem to have some issues communicating in proper English. Normally I wouldn't have an issue with this, however they have been told this before and seem to have ignored it and have continued making edits to articles in poor English. I'm not exactly sure what to do here so I figured I'd bring this up with your first rather than go straight to ANI since I don't want to assume bad faith here because I've seen another user have issues with this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd help to know what IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, the IP is ‎204.129.232.191. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. I've blocked Special:contributions/204.129.232.0/24 for 3 years, which is the longest block of one of the individual IPs already blocked in that range. It makes more sense to me than reblocking 204.129.232.191, whom I've blocked twice before last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. I noticed that they refused to go to another language Wikipedia despite their english makign it clear they should be editing on a different language Wikipedia rather than leave a mess for editors to clean up with their attempts at English. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Question on deletion of page for Gerard Basset Foundation

17:12, 30 January 2023 Bbb23 talk contribs deleted page Gerard Basset Foundation (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Is there any way this page could have avoided deletion? Thank you. STolliver2 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bluntly, no. The article (not "page") was pretty pathetically promotional. There was nothing there of substance, but rather mounds of fluffy press releases and self-promotion telling us how great they are and how wonderful Gerard Basset had been. We don't want advertising and brochures; we want to know what the outside world, journalists and scholars and regulatory agencies, have to say about the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.
Just to clarify on sources, the publications used for the article, i.e. industry or trade publications, are not seen as suficiently credible, and would fall under sources deemed WP:NOTRELIABLE, is that correct? STolliver2 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusing edit

How was this user insufficiently warned? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You're not serious? One warning for an edit made today, no edits before today since 2 years ago, and no warnings before today. Your report was a waste of administrator time, and in the future, unless we're talking about an experienced editor, use standard templated warnings in the appropriate manner. Come on, you've been around long enough to know better.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I was serious. Why are templates necessary for a user whose account is purely adding lies into Wikipedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Because the warning isn't clear enough, but the manner of the warning wasn't the main problem. As far as I'm concerned, your report was an abuse of process, and your reaction to my decision is disturbing. I suggest until you learn what is an appropriate report at WP:AIV, you not file any more reports.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you being serious? The warning "Stop inserting false claims: This is vandalism and warrants being blocked." seems very straightforward to me. I will continue to file reports at WP:AIV as I have several dozen times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Final comment/request regarding HaughtonBrit

Can the current HaughtonBrit SPI archive be changed so that the master is listed as WorldWikiAuthorOriginal Special:Contributions/WorldWikiAuthorOriginal as that account precedes the creation of HaughtonBrit. The two are undeniably linked, QEDK indeff blocked WWAO on March 25, 2020 [9] after his comment that he would continue to edit logged out [10]. HaughtonBrit was created just one day later [11]. WWAO heavily edited the page Battle of Saragarhi [12], a battle that was led by a British Lt. Colonel John Haughton, hence the succeeding sock account being named HaughtonBrit. WWAO was blocked by and edit warred against admin Utcurush in the Battle of Saragarhi [13], HaughtonBrit has a sock that was clearly intended to impersonate the same admin [14]. Note that


Behavioural evidence: Both add Sikhs fought long enough for reinforcements to arrive. [15] and [16]. Both add 10,000 to Afghan strength in the infobox [17], [18] and [19]. Both add that 12000-24000 Orakzais (Afghans) were present [20] and [21], [22]. Both add or have edits consistent with supporting the narrative that Indian/Sikh troops had poor weaponry, and removing content which state that Afghans had inferior weaponry [23],[24], [25] and [26], [27]. Both remove the same sourcs that claim only 1000-1500 Orakazi tribesman were present instead of 12-24K [28] and [29]. Note that WWAO was engaged in a significant content dispute with Utcursh in 2020 [30] causing him to get temp blocked , when Utcursh made this edit on May 20, 2021 [31], HaughtonBrit created the account AtmaramU just 10 hours later-[32] and both HaughtonBrit and AtmaramU began to revert Utcursh's edits on the page [33], [34] thereafter. Please also note, this is just one page I looked at and there is far more evidence from other pages but I felt that would make the post excessively long, if you feel like more is required, kindly ping me and I will provide more. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with any change of the master. If you want to pursue this, I suggest you post at WT:SPI/C. I'm not sure that's the best place, but I don't know that there is any good venue. Just to be clear, I'm not recommending that you pursue it, but, no offense, I do know how stubborn you can be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Noted, but with all due respect, I do believe the account should be listed on there as there is clear cut evidence that they're related, but I also think I should I give it a rest for the time being. I'll inquire about it in a few months. Thanks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe one day I'll get all the respect I'm due, but I kinda doubt it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Any idea if you made a troll very angry in the past?

Some stupid LTA isn't grown up enough to stop himself from spamming the English wikibooks, including talkpages (here's mine), about how much he dislikes you. Any idea why he might dislike you? Or is this simply revenge since you were the first person to ban one of his accounts or something? — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 11:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't know who they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this not a valid G10?

In this edit you decline a speedy deletion request. No argument, but I don't understand something you clearly do. ? BusterD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The username is an attack, not the content of the page. It's also over 10 years old. I mean really. If you want the username itself hidden, that would require an OS. A deletion won't do it. I don't think we normally do that with these kinds of outrageous usernames, but maybe if someone pushes hard enough, it's done. Not like I've kept track of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
On my first reading I missed the extreme age. Rationale makes sense. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Oops, apologies for missing this when I asked for the background. While I disagree, it makes total sense. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 17:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

EEng

I can't tell if you meant to close that discussion, or a different discussion, and either way I don't feel blocked. Not enough, anyway. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I block a lot of editors. It'd be much less grief for me if they didn't "feel" blocked, so I'm happy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please change the closure summary, ideally to something that summarises the consensus among the admins responding. This 'newcomer' hasn't been blocked in 18 years and there is no reason that people reading the closure summary in the future will think you were anything other than serious. JeffUK 10:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought JoJo Anthrax summed it up well in the "first" closure. I wouldn't worry about mine. No one is going to think I really blocked all those editors, including, at my count, five administrators. All anyone has to do is look at your block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I do worry about it! Could you please remove it? Or may I? JeffUK 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry that you worry, but no you may not remove it. Move on to something else, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@JeffUK: I've reconsidered and decided I was being insensitive, so I've removed both my closure and Tryptofish's (made no sense without mine), so the only closure is the non-admin closure, which is perfectly fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
To make sure Bbb23 stays sensitive, I have blocked him indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC).
Won't work. I intend to go back to being insensitive. Being sensitive is hard work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Compare item 5 in the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia. Admittedly that primarily addresses civility, but I'm pretty sure it'll work for sensitivity too. Anyway, I tried. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC).
Truthiness is a word?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, you must watch some classic Colbert Report[35] Andre🚐 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
God, I haven't watched Colbert in ages. Very funny spot.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Can confirm, that as someone who was actually blocked by Bbb23, it can do wonders for the constitution. Kind of like a nice spa day. Andre🚐 21:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but I didn't block you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
You were quite lenient and I learned the lesson. Unjokingly. Also I was being an idiot at the time. Just proves Bish's guide true. Andre🚐 21:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sonu Kanwar

You deleted the article "Sonu Kanwar" who is a famous folk singer in Rajasthan. You can check on internet as well. She have millions of followers in Rajasthan and she is known for folk singing in marwadi region of Rajasthan. Wikione9 (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It's clear at this point Kautilya3 won't compromise or cooperate at all. I can't keep engaging him just because he won't agree. He's clearly trying to game the system with stonewalling. I hope other editors weigh against him, but if he still stonewalls I hope you act. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Request to Restore article on Serena Terry

I'm reaching out to you to request you bring back my article on Serena Terry. I initially let it go out of respect and naivety. I am aware that Wikipedia relies on good will and consensus. I am not assuming anything as we all have our reasons for doing things, however I do think what you did was neither fair nor justified nor was I given a 2nd chance to fix the allegation of unambiguous promotional tone. I came across WP:BACKLOG, where there are literally thousands of pages with actual cited issues with promotional tone, one of which I have been working on myself, one which nobody thought needed to be deleted. When mine was nominated for proposed deletion by user:MrsSnoozyTurtle, no template was added to indicate to the rest of the community that the page had those issues. It was simply put up for deletion without much notice. I removed the deletion proposal tag because I wanted to improve it to remove its perceived promotional tone, and you went ahead and got rid of it. I was following all the basics I understood till then: I drew on reliable secondary sources, I paraphrased the texts as best as I could, and I tried to include all and every viewpoint I could find about the subject matter. It was not my intention to promote or advertise the subject matter. It was simply my first article so I didn't full mastery over a neutral style of writing, something I have picked up a bit better along the way.

Perhaps the article was imbalanced, this was simply because I could not find any opposing viewpoint that contradicted or taken things from a different angle. Perhaps the fact that I added the subject matter's works that it was flagged for promotional content. It was neither my intention to promote nor should it be the case. On previous discussions with other editors who have pointed out potenetial rule breaking I would have been made aware beforehand that quality of the article was not fit for purpose and to fix it or remove it altogether. I was not given any heads up, even after weeks of the initial creation.

Additionally, I disagreed with MrsSnoozyTurtle's motion altogether, as there was another thread raised where multiple editors complained about the editor's other actions by indicating some violation of rule breaking on multiple occasions.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter

Regards Saussure4661 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you wish, I am willing to restore it, but to draft space and with the proviso that you go through WP:AFC. Please confirm your agreement. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, my mistake for not going through that first. Would that bring the full text back in a format I could at least copy the contents and then work around it? Just trying to understand what you are proposing. Thanks Saussure4661 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You'll have everything that was there before it was deleted. It will generally look like an article. However, there are certain items that are not permitted in draft space, e.g., categories, so they will be commented out. However, if an AFC reviewer accepts the article and moves it to article space, the commmented cats can easily be uncommented.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Here you go: Draft:Serena Terry. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much :) Saussure4661 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion/edit war

You recently blocked 2404:7A83:B1C0:7D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they're back at it on 2400:4053:D182:FE00:54D9:BEB4:4359:3B9E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – 2.O.Boxing 04:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple impostors?

There's this account and this one. Don't know how the edit was deleted while in the process of typing this new topic. And for the petition to ban you? How ironic! Tails Wx 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page

Just figured I"d tell you that I was fine with Lilliana removing that comment from my talk page, I told them I was just gonna remove it anyway for being malformed and just blatantly wrong but they beat me to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

NP, it took me a while to realize that Liliana was right, but I got there eventually.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Albertaont suspected sockpuppet

Last year, I made you aware of a sockpuppet of Albertaont. I'm confident, I have found another, an older account named Sinwiki12. This isn't as blatant as the previous cases. Both accounts have almost identical topic interests and similar editing, primarily content that is pro-China, including focuses on vaccines, vehicle manufacturers, Chinese military tech, spacecrafts, energy power in China and more. They also made edits critical of the US and UK and edits related to racial issues. Both accounts have a similar POV across a wide range of different topics and have made similar edits including on the same pages. See the Editor Interaction Analyser, Sinwiki12 Top edits, and Albertaont Top edits.

For example see the similarities in these edits critical about the Iraq War: [36], [37], and [38]. The last edits by the Albertaont account were on 2021 Kabul airport attack: [39]. These are similar to Sinwiki12's edit to the related August 2021 Kabul drone strike: [40]. This edit by Sinwiki12 to the United States: [41] includes a critical mention of drone strikes and Qasem Solemeini assassination. Albertaont also made this edit about Solemeini's assassination: [42] and also made similar edits to the United States: [43], [44].

On China, both accounts also made very similar edits where they removed mass surveillance and censorship from the lede: [45], [46]. On COVID-19 vaccine both accounts have numerous edits, including some that are pro CoronaVac: [47], [48]. On CoronaVac both accounts made edits regarding the same Chile study: [49], [50]

Both accounts made edits to the same Chinese military and vehicle manufacturer pages including Long March (rocket family): [51], [52], Type 039A submarine: [53], [54], BYD Auto: [55], [56]. Both accounts edited Sukhoi articles: [57], [58], and made multiple edits to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics: [59], [60], and to Nuclear power in China: [61], [62]

There are many other similarities between the accounts, including with edit summaries: [63], [64]. Sinwiki12's recent editing history, however, rarely contains edit summaries and includes a very high rate of being reverted due to alot of problematic edits. Nettless (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is way too much for me to look at. Please file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertaont. You can use the diffs here for your evidence. However, I would urge you to make them desktop diffs rather than mobile.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I may have gone overboard with the amount of diffs. The first paragraph of diffs regarding the Iraq War and Kabul drone strike are quite revealing on their own. I will file a sockpuppet investigation report soon. Nettless (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore article on Centro Cultural Universitario

The page in question Centro_Cultural_Universitario was a translation of a page that already exists in the spanish version of Wikipedia. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Cultural_Universitario_(UNAM)

The place is the largest cultural center in the Americas and houses one of the largest concert halls in the Americas, which also has its own web page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sala_Nezahualc%C3%B3yotl

Seems to me to be fairly arbitrarily since pages like Royce Hall, from the UCLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Hall), Performance Hall from Utah State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Hall_(Utah_State_University)) are admitted.

This seems a blatant bias towards US institutions, and an indirect message that the WIkipedia represents unfairly the cultural centers of their main editors rather than a good representation of all the world. Leonoel (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are trying to get a promotional article undeleted, it's best not to sling unfounded accusations of bias.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Aside from the bias, can you find any good reason for the page to be deleted whereas similar pages in the US are admitted? Leonoel (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Boo!

Look, it's me, editing on a weekend!!-- Ponyobons mots 21:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice try. No one believes you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a spy balloon, collecting data.-- Ponyobons mots 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Make sure to put it on balloon.wiki so other CheckBallooners can access it later after the balloon is shot down...or is punctured with a long pin.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Achaudhary0205 continues to make ungrammatical edits and modify quotes, does not reply to talk page. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

More block evasion

2400:4053:D182:FE00:0:0:0:0/64 is back on 210.135.80.72. This edit summary confirms. – 2.O.Boxing 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops - I edited an archive!

Sorry about that. I had my head up my... uh, place where it doesn't think well. I didn't realize it was off-limits to edit because other discussions I've been involved in turn blue when they are closed and no more edits are allowed. That's a feeble excuse, but it's how I was thinking. I knew the rule against editing archived pages but managed to forget it. Archive means no edit.

Still, if someone is sockpuppeting around a block for disruptive editing and personal attacks in order to do more of the same, what should someone like me do? I screwed up. As a teacher, I would tell my students this is a teachable moment. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you give me the details?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Special:Contributions/86.83.170.173 (the ip user I'm talking about) deleted an entire section from the Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season page (diff, something also done previously by the ip user that was the subject of the AN/I and who is now banned for a month), a nuisance edit (also reverted) on User talk:EuropeanXTwisters (see diff), three edits on 2022–2023 United Kingdom group A streptococcus outbreak, all of which were reverted, and other edits on the current European windstorm season, several of which also seemed clearly to be nuisance edits, and which were also reverted (see diff and diff as examples). The first of those two might be flagrant vandalism. I have searched everywhere to find any record of a boat capsizing just offshore of Turkey, which was not hit by Cyclone Helios, and I can't find any fatalities at sea or elsewhere related to the storm. (I would revert that edit myself but I can't find evidence that it didn't happen, so maybe the CN tag should hold?) There is also a nuisance edit on User talk:Mitch199811 (see diff - note that user:Mitch199811 and user:EuropeanXTwisters are users who have recently participated in discussions relating to disputes with the ip editor). Another example of flagrant vandalism is here. And here is an earlier example of this ip making the same argument (in the edit summary this time) in favor of using cases instead of notifications in the 2022–2023 United Kingdom group A streptococcus outbreak article (an argument that became part of a personal attack that involved me when at the time I wasn't even aware of the article). The Special:Contributions/86.83.170.173 page is full of examples of reverted nuisance edits and arguments that we've heard from the recently blocked ip editor. This ip editor, 86.83.170.173, was blocked today by an admin (User talk:Ohnoitsjamie) who said they'd given the 1-week block "based on an edit filter indicating partipation in a WP:MEAT vandalism campaign." (Nope, I have no idea what that means.)
Sorry if I'm verbose (I know I am), but you did ask for the detail. Dcs002 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding yesterday, but it looks like you don't need anything from me, do you? Next time, though, I'll ask more specific questions rather than an open-ended one for "details". :p --Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the tldr/wow. I'm specifically asking you for further protection (sanctions?) from this disruptive ip editor who has been evading your block, or advice where I should take this problem. Maybe just extend your block to this ip? I don't know what's appropriate. That's why I'm asking you for help. (See Special:Contributions/86.83.170.173. Nearly all recent edits have been reverted. I think the rest had to be manually re-edited. Earlier edits make it clear who this is. I think it was an oversight this ip was not included in that ANI discussion.) Their damage is not always obvious (e.g., false reports of additional fatalities that never happened, that sort of thing.) Should I have created a new ANI section for this? I've never done that before. I've never been involved in anything like this before. Dcs002 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you should do nothing for the moment. If the IP resumes editing after the block expires, then you can consider what to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'll drop it for now. Dcs002 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Galina Kurlyandskaya

Hi, what believable claim to fame is there here? That she's editorial board member of a predatory journal? That she has published papers? That she's a scientist? This is all run-of-the-mill stuff, so I'm genuinely curious why you think A7 is not applicable. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

She has a long list of publications. For a speedy tag, I am not going to go beneath the surface and decide whether she satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. I suggest AfD. Personally, I'm not even sure it's PRODable, but nothing prevents you from PRODding it if you wish. I'm curious, too: why didn't you tag it back in 2021 when you edited the article then?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not that anyone asked, but I would have declined that A7 as well. The claim that "Kurlyandskaya has published more than 110 peer-reviewed research papers" is a claim of significance that puts it out of contention for an uncontroversial A7 deletion (in my opinion). Notability issues can be addressed via AfD.-- Ponyobons mots 22:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough about the A7, although 110 papers is not very impressive for a person involved with predatory publishers (but perhaps I'm inferring too much now and those articles are all in reputed journals). As for my thinking in 2021, I sometimes have trouble remembering what I was doing 5 min ago, let alone years ago... :-) Perhaps I was tired and didn't want to put in the time and effort that an AfD requires. I was quite busy in RL at that time (I was negotiating the sale of my house and buying another one). I'm not even sure I feel like putting in the effort now with more time at hand, I'll have another look in a while and then decide. --Randykitty (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I think I'd rather nominate an article for AfD (and I hate AfD) than sell my house and buy another one. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the sale took 18 months for all details to be solved satisfactorily (and I still need to get reimbursed by the new owners because the watercompany erroneously charged me for their water), I couldn't agree more... :-( --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bigfoodfan2023

Hi, I just stumbled upon this sock you blocked a few days ago. While I do believe it is indeed a sock, I don't think it is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LastEdit2008. From quickly looking, I would believe this is actually Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan: apart from their obsession with Bigfood, see previous socks such as 'Bigfood meme', 'Bigfood22', 'BigfoodFan2', and 'Sasquash-Bigfood', as well as socks including 'Fan' and/or a year at the end of their username.

Hope this helps... Magitroopa (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Helps?? Those socks need to be globally locked, which, outside of SPI, is a royal pain in the ass. This is all your fault! Sigh, thanks for pointing out my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for your note. I am quite forgetful sometimes, and have acknowledged the warnings. Something I haven't had an opportunity to do in quite a while is to re-study WP policies in detail; I've had little chance to do this since getting my head muddled in work. With a short wikibreak, I'll do that and return refreshed. I am listening. Thanks again, Silikonz💬 01:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Again

2400:4053:D182:FE00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back on 2405:6583:A240:1700:CC48:C34B:8357:C07A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – 2.O.Boxing 13:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Series of potential socks block evading

Hi there. I wanted to make you aware of several IPs and a "new" editor who have both been making identical—or at least extremely similar—edits to previously banned accounts Frenkestain, Soares1967, and Aknulby. The IP looks to be part of an array of IPS beginning with "185." (Special:contributions/185.224.0.120; 185.224.1.90; and 185.224.1.54 are just three of many that appear to be used) that are clearly controlled by the same person block evading. The "new" editor is called Andreapietro34. The account started making edits on 14 February 2023, the day after the three sock accounts mentioned above were banned for sockpuppetry. Trying to undo the unproductive and often entirely incorrect edits made by these socks is exhausting. I appreciate your work in helping in that fight. I would appreciate anything you can do to quell this latest assault on Wikipedia. Anwegmann (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked and tagged the named account, and blocked Special:contributions/185.224.0.0/23 for 2 months. The IPs are prolific. I used the 3 you gave me to calculate the range. If you know of any others that are not part of the blocked range, let me know. Thanks for bringing all this to my attention. Feel free, btw, to revert any edits made by these IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wow, what a quick response. Thank you very much for your help. Anwegmann (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I did a location search on a new IP (217.131.26.62), which has been updating many of the same pages as previous socks in much the same way—the same editing patterns, the same pages, etc.—and the location is similar enough for me to wonder if we have yet another block evasion on our hands. They edited Alex Moucketou-Moussounda earlier, and they are now at work on Andrejs Cigaņiks. Just a heads up! Anwegmann (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BBC Edits

Many thanks for altering my heading to Ponyo. I was rushing to a hospital appointment and rather messed-up. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem; hope you're okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_58&oldid=1141667208"