User talk:Bbb23/Archive 61

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

Sock Puppet Concerns

If I have concerns that some editors are sock puppets, whats the best way to proceed if my evidence is only circumstantial?? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Most evidence of socking is "circumstantial", i.e., behavioral. If you have sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, you should file a report at WP:SPI. For a better understanding of what you need before filing and how the process works, read the top of the SPI page beginning with "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Is it possible for me to DM you my concerns and you determine if it's worth filing a report? In which case, I will so. I don't want to make trouble if I'm chasing shadows. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather not handle things by e-mail (if that's what you mean by DM). How many registered users are involved? Are there also IPs that you suspect?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
That is indeed what I meant. 4 users. Countless IPs. I'll just write about it here. Nick McKenzie was being vandalised in connection with Peter Schiff. McKenzie did a story on Schiff, Schiff sued and the case was just settled. This saw a rash of vandalism to McKenzie's page all in a rush to defend Schiff and pile shame on McKenzie. I requested edit protection for McKenzie's page yesterday and suddenly, dormant editors who hadn't edited in a while (in one case 5 years) edited his page, his talk page and my talk page. There was no protection on Schiff's page but there's the same issue there. To me, it seems strange that editors who could have edited the page before the protection was in place, suddenly did so when it was there. I wouldn't bet my house on sock puppetry, but I'd pretty certain of at least meat puppetry. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Who are the four users?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Kgelner edited McKenzie's page after a 5 year break
JDWalston edited McKenzie's talk page after only making ever one previous edit
JimH44 dormant since January 2019, but now made 3 Schiff related edits, two of which were today
Akyrimos is different from the other 3. I was just looking at editors of Schiff's page who were dormant until Schiff caused them to become active again. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's too difficult for me to analyze, partly because there are so few edits. My instinct is that editors are coming out of the woodwork because of the recent news, not because they are related accounts, but that's just a gut reaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok cool. For me, it seems a tad coincidental but I'm keeping my eye on it. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Ponyo

Clam down, this particular instance is not a felony :P - FlightTime (open channel) 14:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In Canada it might be. Actually, the comment should be moved to the bottom of Ponyo's Talk page, but I'll let her sort it out now that you've tried to "fix" it and I've unfixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
...and Ponyo has now sorted it. It is indeed a felony in Canada to mess with someone's talk page. You are sentenced to life without parole, which is immediately commuted with a million "sorry, eh"'s and then I go to your place and cook you dinner.-- Ponyobons mots 17:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As long as what you cook meets my specifications AND you cook enough for the other members of my household AND all of us like the food AND the meal has multiple courses, including dessert AND all of it is homemade AND you clean up afterward. I'll have my lawyer send your lawyer a contract for you to sign. American law governs. The instructions you left for the user are pretty damned good. I doubt the user will appreciate them, but I'm impressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
You found my weakness: make a bunch of unreasonable demands but leave off with a compliment. Sigh; I'm off to source some lemongrass and lime leaves for dinner, I guess.-- Ponyobons mots 17:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
My experience is that most demands are inherently unreasonable; else, one wouldn't have to make them, or one could call them "requests" instead. Lemongrass and lime leaves sound good to me. If those are some of the ingredients you're going to use for our dinner, perhaps I could trim/tone down some of my demands. I'll speak to my lawyer and get back to you on it. I have one of the three lawyers in the US who is competent AND (you must be getting sick of these "AND"s) charges nothing for legal advice. I think you know him.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

CSD G11

Dear User:Bbb23,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to request a reconsideration of the draft article -> [1]] which is about "Julius Cleyn" for speedy deletion under Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G11. This criterion pertains to articles primarily serving promotional purposes without encyclopedic value.

Upon a thorough examination, the draft raises significant concerns. Firstly, it appears to be a case of self-promotion, despite its seemingly non-promotional tone. This is partly indicated by the author's username, JCleyn, mirroring the subject's name, which points towards a possible conflict of interest as outlined in WP:COI.

The draft's content is unsupported by reliable, independent sources. The only related findings were a YouTube channel with limited activity and a LinkedIn profile with minimal content. Neither platform is deemed a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes (but that's the only thing I could find about the subject). This scarcity of independent coverage strongly suggests that the article's creation might not be from a neutral third party, further questioning its purpose and neutrality.

Considering these factors, the draft appears to predominantly serve promotional aims and falls short of meeting Wikipedia's standards for neutral, verifiable content. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that CSD G11 may indeed be applicable in this instance. Your consideration and review of this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.

QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 21:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The draft is an obvious autobiography, but autobiographies are not automatically deletable per WP:G11. In this instance, the language of the draft is not a bit promotional. It just says Cleyn is a rapper and a songwriter, nothing more. Your interpretation of G11 is not quite right. The key part of G11 says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate your response dear User:Bbb23 I'll keep that in mind. Have an amazing weekend ahead! <3 QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 06:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

ANI thread that may be of interest

Just letting you know about this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Thailand’s Universal Health Care since the block the OP seems to be referring to, or at least the only one I found and linked to, was yours. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well now

I'm glad you're at work, even though you're probably still shaking with excitement after Alabama's SEC victory and its selection for the play-offs. So, User talk:ZahraHeidari2 is confirmed with AliLotfian3, of course, and they are also, as far as I can tell from the technical data, identical with User:JacksonPB5 (and I blocked them and two socks). Whether they are all five instances of the same spammer can, I suppose, be decided on their grammar and style. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble "working" from the shaking/quivering. Only two of the three accounts made any substantive edits, but everyone is advertising university profs (and we all know what university profs are like, don't we?). Your little farm is advertising an Iranian prof, whereas "mine" is advertising a Pakistani prof at a Maryland university. One of "your" accounts, though, edited another article related to the same Iranian, but it was an article about an American heart surgeon/professor (terrible article) who was apparently involved with a Maryland medical school. I'd be inclined to combine them as one farm. Is that okay with you? If so, can I tag them all as confirmed to each other? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Go for it, Bbb. And I'll tell you, I have seen cross-cultural and cross-cultural overlap I wouldn't have believed a few years ago: Nigeria and Pakistan are working together, for example. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Drmies, I don't know if you noticed, but yesterday I blocked another account, Samawatt. Can you confirm that one as well? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot confirm that, no. Brand new IP and very different location--there's no other socks there either. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I've retagged the others as confirmed and removed the suspected tag from Samawatt's userpage. Sam's reaction to my block, though, is mildly interesting. First, they bitched, and a minute later they removed their bitch and my block notice. They did not request an unblock. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, we might have another connection across the seas and the continents there. In one case I strongly suspect that accounts were made in one country that were then sent off to another country, another user, in order to make edits. An expert of sorts starting an article and then passing on the information and the account(s) to an end user, a much less experienced one. I can't tell if that is the case here--the case I remember was with prolific socking and an abundance of edits. Compared to that, this is amateurish. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The only thing worse than sly socks is clever sly socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-admitted sock?

Hi Bbb23. User:KTerPalmers recently posted this nomination at ITN, putting "User:BSrap" in the nominator field. Is this not them basically admitting they are BSrap? I can't think of a good faith explanation. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a sockmaster from the past. Behaviorally obvious, now blocked and tagged. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

U sure about which account is older?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abayan leo I may be barking, of course! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not that it matters in the great scheme of socks 👍 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, account creation date rules, not first-edit date.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. Guess who got it wrong! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion

Regarding undeletion of Egor Burkin, I don't exactly know how the undeletion process works. Maybe you can undelete it to User:Thinker78/Undeletion/Egor Burkin. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

See User:Thinker78/Egor Burkin.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

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

Administrator changes

added
removed
renamed Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

2023-2024 Perth Scorchers Season page

Hey I realised you deleted this page and I would like to ask permission to be able to recreate the page if possible.

There is already a link on another page to it and I feel the page is necessary to have because as of day the Perth Scorchers Season actually started.

Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of reverts on Kochari

Hi Bbb23,

Here, you have mentioned that there were three reverts. One of the edits listed by ArmenianSniper is literally me adding a page needed tag. All three of my edits listed there (discounting the one from August) were right after each other. So, I don't get how I have made three reverts. The same can be said for ArmenianSniper, I think, if we take each consecutive edit as one, they have reverted for two times at most but accused me of edit-warring after their first edit following mine (or my first revert). Aintabli (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the reverts were not listed correctly, I see 3 reverts by you:
--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The second one is where I added a page needed tag, which has nothing to do with the dispute. I don't understand how that is a revert. And it was also following an edit by AnomieBOT, which was right after my first revert. Aintabli (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, hmmm... I think there is a technical issue. When I clicked on the link you've left here, it says "(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)", which shows that the system merged two of my intermediate edits. Compare this and that. When I look for that edit separately, it is clear that I added the page needed tag in a separate edit. Aintabli (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
AnomieBOT edited following my first and second edits you've listed above. They were still consecutive. And by the same token, ArmenianSniper separately undid each of my edits, so they would have way more reverts than I do. Aintabli (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for another comment. AnomieBot's edit in between was what led you to believe they were different reverts, but rather they were all a series of related edits and not back and forth reverts. I could have tackled all in a single edit. Aintabli (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to address all of your comments, but the one about AnomieBot is correct, meaning you reverted twice, not three times. I will correct the record at ANEW and withdraw the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that there and sorry again for the large amount of edits I made you to your talk page. One last question (but for advice): Would it be disruptive if I seek a 3rd opinion for the dispute “now” because I doubt anything would come out of the discussion on the article’s talkpage, or should I wait? Aintabli (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how seeking a WP:3O would be disruptive, provided you've not done it previously for the same dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thought posting it right after the ANEW thread could further the dispute, but I guess waiting doesn’t really make sense. Anyways, good day. Aintabli (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Amitbir

Hello, Bbb23,

I don't see how this editor was disruptive enough to warrant an indefinite block. They wrote some crappy draft articles but lots of new editors do that. I don't see that they committed any vandalism. Do you think they were a block-evading editor? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of block evasion. I didn't block them as a VOA but for disruption. One piece of crap I don't block; two I usually do. It's true that a lot of new editors write "crappy" drafts, but, forgive me for repeatedly using the word, there's crap and there's crap. This editor's crap was far worse than the poorly written drafts other new editors create. Hope that illuminates my thinking, even if you don't necessarily agree with me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Request

Please block ASAP, or let me know where I can submit a formal request. Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have time

Hi Bbb23,

Can you have a look at this user again, I am quite convinced he/she is engaging in UPE, as some of his articles are mostly deleted articles. The most recent one that has my attention is this article where it has been previously recreated more than 3 times and was salted here. If you follow the history you will see that it was created as Sola Oyebade in draftspace and when they probably tried moving it to mainspace and noticed it was salted they decided to use Olusola Oyebade instead.

I had also filed an SPI here earlier but was inconclusive. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The True Face of Israel

Is it just me, or is this still here? NotAGenious (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not going to figure it out, but for some reason the bot recreated it. It's gone now. Let me know if anything else comes back from the dead.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at this user.

Hello, Bbb23.

You blocked User:Denosio a few days ago. However, a new user presumed to be his successor appeared. He's a user named User:ErurFerury, and i'm worried he might be setting a similar precedent to his predecessor. Dear, I would appreciate it if you could take a look around. Freevisa1234 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As you obviously know, blocked and tagged. Thanks for alerting me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Hi Bbb23. Can you please check on User:Tarun Joga 38? Seems like a obvious sock of User:Tarun Joga 38 TJ who was blocked by you. There is no SPI for the master so bringing this here. Interaction Timeline and both Draft:NTR30 from User talk:કોમુરમ ભીમ and Draft:Devara (2024 film) created by Tarun Joga 38 are the same. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Soooo messy, blocked and tagged...and thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy to help <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Cremastra (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

Does this look familiar in any way? -- Whpq (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I report?

This edit over here QuantumRealm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've already blocked and pulled tpa. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Advice for handling block evasion?

About 10 days ago, you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solomon The Magnifico/Archive#01 December 2023 without action because "The IP edits are old". Indeed, they had stopped editing the day after I reported them. However, they resumed ([2][3]) just days after the investigation was closed. (In the second case using another IP address, 175.29.187.29, whose past edits also fit the pattern of Solomon The Magnifico editing while logged out.) What is the best way to address their attempts at block evasion? --Worldbruce (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mostly the same way you deal with any edits you believe are unconstructive: you undo them with an edit summary as to why. If you wish to mention block evasion in your edit summary, you can. If the IP edits are persistent and occurring "now", then you can file another report, but I can't promise swift action at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Block

Didn't mean to step on your toes with that block. I wasn't redoing your block because I thought you did wrong, I did it because they doubled down afterwards and indicated they were unwilling to be a collaborative member of the community. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As I just said on the user's Talk page, I appreciate what you did, but as Ferret pointed out, my block should have been longer than 72h.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Following Up on Previous Concerns

Following up on our previous discussion (User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_61#Sock_Puppet_Concerns), do you think there is more to go on here in order to investigate if infact there is sock puppetry going on? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I know I just blocked a named user yesterday, but it wasn't for socking. When I look at the two articles, I get a little dizzy with the disruption, but my view now is roughly the same as it was before. At least I don't know how to investigate it. Do you think that Lovemjseo‎ is the same person as another named account who has edited recently?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've got no idea. It's just extremely suspicious that there's a farm of dormant accounts who all emerged from their hibernation at the same time with the same opinions to comment on this issue. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Revdel on History of York

Regarding your removal of copyrighted content at History of York. The revdel tag I applied actually is for earlier revisions. It looks like the editor added back the copyrighted text that I removed so the original revdel request is still not done. -- Whpq (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very good at that sort of thing. Can you fix it? Or I could restore the template and someone else will come along.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've done it. I placed the original revdel request because I wanted a second set of eyes to look at it as it was close paraphrasing, but since you agree and the second addition was the same text as the first addition, I'm comfortable dealing with it. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't verbatim, but not only was it close paraphrasing, but the key expression was the same, he just redistributed the phrases. It looked sly, tbh. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

what's goning on why my pages are keeping deleted?

what's goning on why my pages are keeping deleted?. In arabic wikipedia we understand the proplem of speedy deletion and take the action but in my aricle of mohamed the page was deleted after i added the sources. Can you tell me why?. بافلي مجدي (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you should stick to the Arabic Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,, what a strange answer!!, I meet editors from the English Wikipedia in Arabic Wikipedia and we help them. Is this how we are treated here?. بافلي مجدي (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:UBX/US soccer

Hello! I just noticed that this userbox was deleted about a month ago for vandalism, specifically for being a hoax. I am not sure what happened with that infobox, but is there any way to get that restored? It certainly used to be fine so I am not sure why it got speedy deleted. Jay eyem (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Jay eyem (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GS/SCW&ISIL notification

Template:GS/SCW&ISIL notification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

*clears throat*

You might be interested in the most recent message I've received on my talk page. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I got your ping. The new account is now blocked. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hello, Bbb23,

I've been looking into some sockpuppets and noticed that you recently blocked User:Secularyear2023. While they have been dormant for almost all of 2023, I noticed that User:Secular Player was making very similar edits to Secularyear2023 and could either be the sockmaster or another sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the account as well but decided to take no action because they haven't edited in so long.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I defer to you. And I was incorrect, you blocked User:Getlost2023 not User:Secularyear2023. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

AN notification on behalf of (block-evading?) IP

Hi Bbb23, unless it has been removed, there's a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § CU check by Bbb23. Thanks for your work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, ToBeFree. I'm not sure why no one's blocked the IP, but I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"not promotional in the slightest"

Hi, I have no problem with you not finding this promotional enough for a G11, but a 1-line draft with only an EL to their book on a bookseller's website doesn't sound "in the slightest" to me... Anyway, happy holidays! --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sir i need some help ?

If i have a question can you help me with Simple English Wikipedia ? Harman Jauhh (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ask for help over there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
i am not getting appropriate support from Simple wiki admins Harman Jauhh (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a thing I can do about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm...

I'm not an admin, but something seems off here:

Are you able to take a look? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Very suspicious. I've blocked both accounts as socks. I undid all the GA stuff I could see; if I missed something, let me know or take care of it yourself. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr.BB23 Be neutral

Rana Raeis who is known for 105 million egyptians is not suitable?? xD.

mr.bb23 if you will delelte or move my future pages to drafts tell me now so i can understand. بافلي مجدي (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You know what i'll not even edit a single edit in this page or submit it for review but you'll see professional editors in wikipedia english after few months will create about this actress. بافلي مجدي (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless

Hi, You declined g4 for Draft:Bengali writing in Arabic script, however it is a WP:OR. It was deleted previously per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak-Bangla language. Even in this version, 95% completely matches with previously deleted version. (https://en.everybodywiki. com/Pak-Bangla_language ). Also most likely this version was created by same sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive#23_December_2023, User_talk:Izno#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lazy-restless. Last week User:Izno made two range block for this sock. I can request for SPI but it will be declined since it was created by an IP. If we are going to keep article created by LTA & encourage them, then there is no point for me to fight LTA. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about the sock connection. I've blocked the IP and deleted the draft, as well as another draft, per WP:G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about your draftifying procedure

Hey Bbb23, I have a question as it relates to your draftification procedure. Your move of Draft:Abu Iman brings me here. I have been previously advised that editors should get 60 minutes per WP:DRAFTIFY but I would agree that an article like that should be created in the draftspace. I’m curious what policy or guideline I could cite to if I expeditiously draftified an article?

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 02:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything about 60 minutes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Under § During new page review 3. there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour since the last constructive edit). When using the WP:MTD you even get a warning about early actions, see on the image example File:MoveToDraft - Options screen.png. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 16:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I was searching for "minutes" not "hour". It's good you follow the guidelines, but as far as I'm concerned, they are just guidelines. It was clear that the author was working on creating an article, and it should never have even begun in article space with something so crude, so I moved it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting without proper explanation

I have seen you reverting my work on the article BCIC College without proper explanation. I have stated my reason for the unsourced infos. You can check the schools website if you can find any info. I am a former student of the college and I have knowledge about my institution via eye witnesses and real time observation. If you still have issue with the article not being sourced, I can give you my student id to check If I am a former student or not. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are just short of vandalism, and the final warning I left you on your Talk page stands. Edits to Wikipedia articles must be sourced. Your say-so as a former student is WP:OR and contrary to policy. As I also said in my warning, the unsourced edits are blatantly promotional. We don't use language like that in articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 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.
--MDK-Fan 00:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages. --MDK-Fan 00:13, 1 January 2024 (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) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jelena Đurović

Your last edits seem to have left this in a muddle? Didn't revert to intended version? I'll try and tidy it. PamD 21:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think they are longstanding typos, which have been fixed previously in complex edits by socks etc so reverted. Have just fixed the two typos, and left a note. PamD 21:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Query

Why did you remove the speedy tag [redact]? This page is not only the user talk of a sock of an LTA troll who engages in targeted harassment of me personally, the sock is using my real name. The existence of the page is an attempt at WP:OUTING and it needs to be removed entirely. And it's not even a real user talk page anymore. There is no such user name registered, (the account was deleted apparently) and the page was edited by another sock of the harasser. In other words, I'd much appreciate it if you'd just delete the page entirely. There's no reason to maintain it. oknazevad (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad Striking my prior, digging deeper as I missed the fact it's not an account's actual talk page. -- ferret (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Oknazevad OS is aware and looking. -- ferret (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

So, User:Mahadeb73, thanked me for a (sequential) bunch of old edits to wp:admin.

I checked their contribs, and only see 2 edits, and on their userpage I see Government of India. So, among other things, they seem to know wiki-syntax.

I'm not sure what (if anything) there is to address, but it all combined struck me as odd, and so I thought I'd ask your thoughts on this. - jc37 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No clue what's going on, but I blocked them as WP:NOTHERE based on their extensive Thanks log.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. - jc37 19:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for batch revert

Hi-

I'd like to request that all edits done by permanently blocked editor Daxtonlab with "created references section" in the summary (1639 edits) be reverted or, since I'm not sure this is possible, all their edits (4107 edits) be reverted.

The first bunch creates empty References sections in all those files. His other (all well intentioned) changes aren't as bad, but none of them are improvements. They mostly introduce WP:OL in text, or make meaningless changes to "website=" parameters or add incorrect "journal=" parameters to citations.

Let me know if there's any more information I can give you, or if I should ask someone else.

Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you should take this to WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Sadbunny3

They have indicated a willingness to accept the standard offer and use only one account ... actually, they did that before Christmas. Since no one's responded to it they pinged me again, so I have put the request hold for input from you, as the blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Sorry for the delay in responding. Do you know when the last time a CU ran a check on Sadbunny3 to make sure they have not obviously socked in the last 90 days?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't. Could you, if it's not too much to ask? Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll request it: {{checkuser needed}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I saw the request earlier and was already checking. They are using one connection on which they have a not-very-common (but not rare or particularly unique) device in common with a few other accounts and IP edits, but other non-technical factors lead me to believe this is above board. The other accounts lack data to say conclusively that they're unrelated, and checkuser cannot prove a negative anyway, but in the context of the unblock request my opinion is that this is a green light. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks much, Ivanvector. Daniel, if you think we should unblock the user, then please go ahead.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding reverted edits on Kanaphan Puitrakul and Discussion

Hi there. I saw you had reverted edits on Kanaphan Puitrakul's page that I had question in the discussion, and had also removed that user's answers to my discussion post. I see that user is now blocked. Can you please provide a bit more context about the decision? I'd like to understand better. I do think some of the edits to the page had merit, but others not. Thanks. SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The user was blocked as a sock, and their edits were therefore reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the accused sockmaster (BrightsForever) is denying this on their talk page. Since you tagged them as suspected and not CU-confirmed, I told them to make an unblock request. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Insert eye roll here

Well that's wholly unsurprising.-- Ponyobons mots 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

I haven't done an SPI in ages. I suspect (I'm pretty sure) that someone I've been interacting with is a banned user (master account initials FS), but based upon the past, my guess is that checkuser is unlikely to find anything. So an SPI may be a waste of time. But I don't know. Any idea what my next steps should be, if anything? - jc37 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Too abstract for me, maybe some details?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about being vague. Just feeling unsure of my footing here. - jc37 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not much I can say except that SPIs are often decided based on behavior, not CU, so the fact that someone is stale should not be a barrier to filing an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok thank you. I really haven't done a deep dive into their contribs to build a case. I guess for now that waits for another day when I have more time. Hopefully they won't be too much more disruptive in the meantime. Thanks again, I appreciate your advice. - jc37 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year Bbb23! May this new year bring happiness and prosperity into your life. With the lights of the true path, Amen.

Once again, thanks for your kind interventions on my talk page.

Maliner (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Block

@Bbb23 I understand what you mean. What can I do? Where can I report this? Thank you. Kind regards, 14 novembre (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing you can do except appeal at it.wiki. If you've already tried that and if they have some sort of arbitration committee (as we do), you can appeal to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23 Thank you, what do you mean for "appeal" how can I know if they have one 14 novembre (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've asked Elwood, the administrator who blocked you, whether they have a committee.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, The User is a well-known LTA, "Calicanto2023", blocked until October and with very good reasons. The user "November 14" is the tenth he has created and to date we count more than 20 SP (the last one two hours ago) almost all of them just to create annoyance or nonsense. He obsessively repeats his unjustifiable request and has already been answered. There is nothing to do but ignore it. --Elwood (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elwood: I was right. Your English is WAY better than my Italian, which consists mainly of operatic phrases and my knowledge of other romance languages. Thanks for the elaboration on the user's conduct at it.wiki, but having gone this far, I'm still curious. Does it.wiki have an arbitration committee, and, if so, does it function the way ours does?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
No, we don't have it (at least for now), but requests for unblocking or clarification normally come through the usual various channels, talk, email etc. and to the attention of all sysops in RAA and are always considered by multiple parties. --Elwood (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

SPI Case

Can you please have a look[4] and do you think it enough to reconsider the closing? Bringtar (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Alok 567 et al

FYI, Pyq123h, another sock of Alok 567. I'm not reverting them on List of caste based violence in Bihar, because their edits are sourced (although not the best English as usual), but hope you can keep an eye on that page, too. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 14:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put the article on my watchlist and added the new account to the SPI. For the moment, I haven't blocked them, though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Theater Controls

You moved Electronic Theater Controls to Draft:Electronic Theater Controls this has already been declined 7 times and rejected as Electronic Theatre Controls (correct spelling) which is why I tagged the other for deletion in mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I sock-blocked the two accounts/users involved in the promotion of the company, Hugtrain and Segatari. I deleted the misspelled draft (the one I just moved) but left the other draft alone. I can't speedy-delete a page if I don't think it applies, even if the creator has been disruptive, and I didn't think the A7 applied because of the list of awards. Don't forget, a credible claim of significance is all it takes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok that's great thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Bbb23,

Back in October, you blocked User:82.23.107.184 for block evasion but didn't name who is the blocked editor you thought was using this account. Well, the IP became active after the block ended including creating some unnecessary orphaned talk page as Redirects tonight. So, can you tell me whether you think this blocked editor has returned? They aren't really doing any damage but I know there are editors who have a low tolerance for that kind of activity so I thought I'd ask you what you were thinking when you imposed the previous block. Thanks and I hope you have a good week! Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure it out. I reblocked the IP, this time for six months, and deleted the drafts they created per WP:G5. This time, though, I made it easier for other administrators (and me) to figure out who the blocked editor was because I put it in the block log: Special:contributions/91.235.65.22. I suspect that having a good week isn't in the cards, but thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wheel War

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Peek in on my watchlist, and what's at the top but a Bbb23 arbcom case. In this brave new WP I'm seeing, am I going to get in trouble for calling said case "kind of silly"? Or should I just wink knowingly and you'll know what I mean? Anyway, hi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Floq. I'm not sure why Guerillero appears to be out for blood, but maybe they just feel strongly about policy and brightline rules. 3RR is supposedly a brightline rule, too, but in practice many admins will overlook it depending on the circumstances. I do feel kind of stupid about what I did, though. I just would have preferred that someone pointed out my stupidity without bringing it to ArbCom's attention. I could live without the stress.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
As someone who has banged heads with Bbb23 a few times, I think what they said at the Arbcom case page is exactly what should have been said, a perfect example of WP:ADMINACCT and hence why I think the case should be tossed out as a complete waste of time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This... is such a stretch. The page was tagged, you looked, you actioned. Could you have checked the deletion log before? Sure, fine, whatever. But an admin improperly undeleting their own page and leaving a CSD tag in place for 15 minutes is a rarity. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick personal clarification

I feel it necessary to state to you directly that I respect your response at WP:ARC. I saw it quickly, and I didn't think to mention it to you until now, but I appreciate your responses at the case request, and in my opinion (as well as one of the arbitrators, apparently) they should be shining examples in policy of what administrator accountability looks like. I'm not sure if it means much from me, but for what it's worth, there ya go. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A7 of Ajja Jhala

Hey, what makes you delete Ajja Jhala as A7? Based on scholarly sources, he seems to be a notable historical figure from Rajasthan (Google Books). Will you please explain it per WP:ADMINACCT? Maliner (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

At the point I deleted it, there was nothing to it. I see now that it was recreated and expanded.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You gave the delete summary, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Since I was slightly active at that time, I can faintly remember that there was some content about the historical figure of Mewar but not about an A7 qualified living person. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as I don't have the deleted content with me at the moment. Maliner (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
A7 isn't limited to living real people. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's an automated edit summary when I delete an article that has been tagged as A7. It was an unreferenced piece of nothing. I would have been willing to move it to draft space had someone requested it, but it was not ready for article space at that point.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ferret. I think I am aware that A7 is not only confined to leaving people. I’m just questioning the appropriateness of an administrator deleting an article on a notable historical figure as A7, given that its eligibility can be easily verified through a simple Google search. Maliner (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I can only reply to what you stated above, which was but not about an A7 qualified living person. -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Maliner, I think we're done here. I explained why I deleted the article. Even if you disagree, the point is moot as the article has been recreated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Are we having fun yet???-- Ponyobons mots 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do here is to either PROD or AfD the article; if multiple people disagree on whether something meets A7 (which, as my essay says, is designed for things like "Mr Blowhard is the principal of Podunk High School, Iowa. He is about 6 feet tall and likes wearing beige."), then it's by definition controversial, and should use another deletion procedure. Anyway, as others have said, this is a moot point as the article has been recreated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UniBrill/Archive

Hi, hope you are well. I think the creator of Draft:United States of Biafra is likely to be part of this sock brigade, but I've never done any SPI-stuff. So basically, I wondered if you're interested in doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Sorry for the delay in responding, it's been a difficult week. I agree with you and have blocked and tagged accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Your admin-salary is hereby doubled. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies and Question

I apologize for clerking the noticeboard, but if I may ask, just so I know, what did you mean by “clerking”? I just wanna know so I don’t make the same mistake again. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No precise definition but let's say making comments at an administrative noticeboard that are (1) not really necessary and (2) in a report you have no involvement in. Your comment also used a cue that is usually reserved for administrators, and the comment was after the admin made their decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I just like getting involved with things, even if I'm not involved with it. Also, I didn't know the cue was reserved for admins. At least I know now. Thank you :) Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps a better wording would that the cue is normally used only by admins. Depends on the context, but it's rarely used by relatively inexperienced editors (you).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh. Ok. Sorry about that. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Block of Nomzamo28

Hi Bbb23, you blocked Nomzamo28 for undisclosed paid editing back in November. The block later became a CU block because of evasion, and so the appeal has ended up with ArbCom. The user denies paid editing both in the on-wiki appeal and in the appeal to ArbCom. Having looked at the edits, I can equally see someone just interested in women's football in South Africa, so I feel like I'm missing something. Could you please share any insights you may have that led to the determination of UPE? Here or by email to ArbCom is equally good. Maxim (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It appeared to me that the user's principal focus was on one particular team, Mamelodi Sundowns Ladies F.C., not South African women's football generally (a topic, btw, I know nothing about). They heavily edited the article, and the pages they created were almost all related to the team, including deleted files. They didn't have many edits (they have 167 now, including 4 deleted), which, when taken together with their "focus", made the UPE case stronger. I haven't done many UPE blocks, and unless the user confesses, directly or indirectly, all of such blocks are based on circumstantial evidence, so I can certainly see room for disagreement. From Drmies's comment as the CU blocker, it looks like he disagreed with me, but at that point it was kind of late to unblock the user. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I did disagree on the UPE note, but not that the user was disruptive; the talk page is full of comments, none of which they seemed to have responded to, and any unblock request should start with a mea culpa for socking--did it? Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

IP reverting your edits

91.84.13.209 appears to be rapidly reverting your edits with an edit summary of "Revert ban evasion" for each one. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked them like the other IPs preceding them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding on my talk page.

I followed the link, and read how I should try to get VQuaker to strike through what he wrote. While thinking about that, I realized that the real problem was not possible incivility, but much more serious than that: VQuaker seemingly following me around Wikipedia, reverting many of my edits with inadequate explanation, and making many overly short comments and issuing brief commands (Fabricator has been doing the same thing, but to a much lesser extent and is even sometimes friendly, so for now at least I'm content to ignore Fabricator as harmless).

So I wrote a reply on my talk page to VQuaker in the same section called "Feedback" where he first used the the word "obnoxious".

You wrote that my own conduct would likely be scrutinized at the ANI. Do you think there is anything objectionable about the former? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hi, I think that User:Liam.hirt is a WP:Sock of User:Lam312321321, they have being editing the English Whisky Guild. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any other socks editing that article. Did I miss something? Or indeed the other article the user edited. The last check was run by Blablubbs on January 10, but Liam.hirt edited on January 9. Unless Blablubbs wants to do this here, I think you should file a report at WP:SPI for this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's a bit tenuous, but I ran a check because of the shared interest in English cultural topics, the fact that several Lam socks have used "Liam" in their name (Liamstar2, DdLiam), and the fact that the account was dormant for a long period of time (this sockmaster sometimes revives old accounts). While it's hard to be entirely sure, this account looks like a different person to me. Spicy (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I have seen edits by confirmed WP:SOCK accounts that often have single words on their talk pages and few edits, since this edit fitted the pattern of previous sockpuppet accounts I thought I should let a admin or someone better suited know so that they can report the account as I am not very versed in the sockpuppet policy.
I believe the last check was on a different article and this may have been missed until now.20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
If by "check" you mean what a CheckUser does, checks are not run on articles but on the IPs of the user being checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that is what I was trying to explain in a roundabout way as I could quite recall the process exactly ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a real person called Liam Hirt who is one of the founders of the Circumstance Distillery, and he's quoted in this article in a whisky magazine. He edits under his real name. Our User:Liam.hirt has edited the section of English whisky that talks about Circumstance Distillery, in the fall of 2023. So he has a conflict of interest but doesn't appear to be a sock. The first user to add a mentionof Circumstance Distillery is Bjmvianen, back in 2021, but he looks to be a general-purpose editor and is unlikely to be a sock. Based on the edit that caused ChefBear01 to open this report (which adds Circumstance as one of the founding members of the Guild), someone might leave a COI notice for Liam.hirt. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Whoa, that's impressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok thank you to everyone that looked into this, I want to try and avoid having an influx of WP:SOCK accounts as this seems to be an issue that is difficult to address. I think on this occasion it is a matter of WP:NOTSOCK though I have been correct about sock accounts that I have bought to your attention up to this point. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23@Spicy
I have added a clarification to my account for the avoidance of any doubt from anyone else who may see reported WP:SOCK accounts with a similar name to mine who may not be aware that they may belong to a different account. I do not my account to be mistakenly flagged. ChefBear01 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:2024 Tees Valley mayoral election

Was the master account already blocked when this draft was created? If so, it can go G5. I am not tagging it because the name of the master account isn't listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The name of the master account is "listed". I usually delete such pages on my own, I'm surprised I missed it. Deleted now, though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, even though you were wrong about the master. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible proxy?

Hi there. I'm fairly certain this is a proxy-[5]. The spur.us report says that it isn't but the user behind it has been exploiting a number of various proxies for the past few months, some of them blocked by Yamla, to push tendentious edits on Wikipedia. The listed ISP is AIC Communications, from what I can teel seems to be a fake provider and it obscures the user's real location of Pennsylvania-[6] + [7]. Could this IP be blocked for proxy abuse?Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Speedy deletion of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BrugesFR

The page Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BrugesFR has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category had been empty for seven days or more and was not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may have become empty on occasion.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Principality of camside

Hi, You deleted this article, covering a micronation that existed in Melbourne, Australia in the early 2000s, citing that it is a hoax. If that is the actual reason, then I believe this article should be undeleted, because it is definitely not a hoax; there are many news articles talking about the Micronation, its governor, and how he was sent to jail.

The user who created the article was banned for creating a hoax article, so I think they should also be unbanned if possible. Tosatur (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Take it to WP:DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 25, and this is your courtesy notification. —Cryptic 11:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

In this edit you described my behavior as disruptive. I assure you, I do not mean to be disruptive! Unfortunately, I fear I might repeat the problem, because I don't understand why my edit was so terrible. What was so wrong about nominating You Axed for It! for speedy deletion? No one was actively trying to edit it, I have no history of editing the article nor any history of conflicts with prior editors, and the article has a grand total of no references. I checked and found no history of prior deletion nominations of any kind...I'm sorry, I just don't understand what was disruptive, so I'm afraid I might accidentally do it again. Please explain. Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You tagged the article WP:A7, but A7 does not apply to creative products, including songs and music albums. Songs and albums should be tagged with WP:A9, but never if the singer or band has an article here, which this one does. I had just declined another A7 of yours at Super Speaker, which I would not consider an "organized event" but rather an extension of the TV show itself, which is again not eligible for deletion per A7. I guess I was surprised and a bit annoyed that a user of your experience would tag articles without understanding the tags. I hope that helps, and I apologize for labeling your edit "disruptive" - it was unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I've very rarely used speedy deletion, just not something I often do. I find it confusing. I thought it might be less of a time waster for the project than AfD. Maybe not. Thanks for the explanation! — Jacona (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

Hello, Yesterday you had blocked User:AdityaGem1234, its new sockpuppet

has been created and again doing the same vandalism on article Junooniyatt. Kindly intervene. Imsaneikigai (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads-up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunmooncat1 and Hồ Đức Hải

Two things... first, this came out of the blue. Is this purely behavioral, or did this determination include CU? Second, usually the older account is marked as the master and the others as puppets; you have this the other way around. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral. I intentionally blocked the newer-created account as the master. I don't do it too often, but in this instance, although Summooncat1 was created back in 2017, they hadn't edited until this month, whereas the other account had quite a few edits going back years.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The return of 91.192.81.61

You previously blocked 91.192.81.61. Letting you know that 185.104.63.112 is editing the same topics in the same style. There has been a persistent problem with a user behind these IPs that I notice when they edit in questionable information about the use of herbs by various ethnic groups, particularly the Roma. A few of their previous IPs include:

103.171.44.94
2A02:27AA:0:0:0:0:0:1571
2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:8855:31B:12E7:5D7A
45.8.146.82

I also let NinjaRobotPirate know since they have done some of the previous blocks of this editor. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And they sprung back very quickly, now editing as 86.107.179.231. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Good to know someone's enjoying themself.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. More persistent than last time. Now as 83.229.61.201 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that IP's edits! ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Jungan Pratama

I'm not allowed to use "hogwash," as an unblock decline rationale😠 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Who says? I've seen worse than hogwash. Some admins don't mince words.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Howdy. Yesterday you warned a user for consistent edit warring. I’m leaving a message to let you know this has unfortunately continued twice after your warning. Best, — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Two problems: the user has not violated 3RR and I'm WP:INVOLVED because I reverted one of the user's edits. You might consider filing a report at WP:AN3 noting that it's a slow edit-war, which is still sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, wasn’t sure if INVOLVED applied here but noted. Cheers for the guidance. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about IP ranges and SPI

Hi, from your experience, is /48 too wide as a range to report at SPI? Thank you, Aintabli (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no good answer to that. It depends.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way I can check how wide it is as an ordinary editor? Or should I take the risk and add this range to the report I made? Aintabli (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The issue is always collateral damage. You have to examine the edits of the range to see what percentage of them are connected to the sockmaster. Those that aren't are considered collateral damage. The more collateral damage, the less likely a block will be imposed. In this particular instance, the range you point to has been blocked before, so I'd include it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Thank you. I hadn't also realized that this range was blocked before. Aintabli (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hello, Bbb23. The IP hopper is undoubtedly the same person, focusing on spreading negative information about Russian opposition politicians and human rights activists, namely Boris Nadezhdin and Mark Feygin, while waging edit wars and misrepresenting sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Other IP proxies, apparently still the same person.
-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to deal with POV editing

Hi @Bbb23, the last couple of days a new user, User:Ouiouibonjour showed up on the page Semitic languages, and he seems to be intent to make the page a battlegound of the Arab-Israeli_conflict by edits such as this one. I reverted him once and left a friendly note on his talk page, but today, without any explanation, he reinstated his edit, entirely ignoring the warning. I don't want to bring this to ANI right away, as I guess that the user is still inexperienced and doesn't quite know how things work in Wikipedia, but I hope that an Admin may be able to give a somewhat sterner talk to this person. Gratefully, LandLing 19:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"There must be some misunderstanding"

Do they teach in sock puppet school to claim a block is based on a misunderstanding? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Denial is Socking 101.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I admit I sometimes get a chuckle from schoolkids pretending to be a parent who assures us in their appeal that they have doled out ample punishment for their "child's" shenanigans. -- Ponyobons mots 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet?

Hello Bbb23 -- I'm a long-time admin who's not on top of all the current procedures. I saw you have recently reverted an edit by a sock of banned user User:ByzantineIsNotRoman and have seen a number of edits from a new user and it seems to be the same user: [8]. I thought it might be most effective to flag this for you rather than try to make sure I'm following all the current procedures, and I hope that isn't presumptuous of me! -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bcorr: I'm not convinced that it's the same person for at least a couple of reasons. First, the edit summaried by Aqua are often in Portuguese, which I don't believe is typical of this sock farm, AFAIK. Second, there have been a number of checks by CUs, including Yamla, since Aqua was created and the account hasn't popped up. I suggest you file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ByzantineIsNotRoman so it can be investigated properly. If you need help with that, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Bbb23 -- I'll keep watching and if I do need some help with a report I will circle back to you! -- best, BCorr|Брайен 18:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

MfD:Akhand Bharat

Hello, Bbb23. I want to ask for your input about the (possible) proper course of action at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Akhand Bharat, since you are completely uninvolved there. I started that MfD nomination on 21 January, and as you can see – the discussion is pretty stalled in recent days. Would it be justifiable to relist it, in order to get clearer consensus and just draw more attention to that discussion? Or maybe you have some other idea? Naturally, being the nominator and therefore an involved party there, I am refraining from taking any action by myself. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd ask another administrator who is more experienced in XfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert?

Hey Bbb23, hope you are doing well.

Just wondering, did you mean to revert here? [9] I was trying to reply to a comment on my talk page, and it was reverted by you with zero explanation. Just caught me off guard. Let me know. Thanks! Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I was reverting your notifications of that crap at ANI, and I must've misclicked. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah no worries. I was just trying to follow ANI policy. Thanks for the explanation, cheers! Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
In future, please don't look at it that way. It is the OP's responsibility to notify users, not yours or any other onlooker's. And in this case, the OP was an obvious troll (turns out sock), and we should never be "helping" trolls or socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That one blocked user who wanted admin

I restored the block templates, hope you don’t mind! Geardona (talk to me?) 23:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I undid your edit - see my edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
So it’s just unblock requests??? That makes very little sense, just saying. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Not exactly, see WP:BLANKING for more.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Alright, my bad, thanks! Geardona (talk to me?) 23:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

5.38.104.105

So I guess I was right to be suspicious of 5.38.104.105 when I saw them in the edit filter log. Curious as to if it was NormalguyfromUK self-snitching, or another sockmaster entirely? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New Simon Ekpa-org

Biafra Liberation Army, if you're interested. Doesn't look notable atm, but I haven't looked for sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm more interested in whether the author is a sock, and, if so, of whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
That'd be my guess based on the creating-Ekpa-org-article behaviour, sock or meat, but I'm guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjupither names the author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for filing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
That was Chris Troutman, I'll take finding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I saw Chris's comments but didn't realize he'd filed. Moving too quickly. My apologies, Chris.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Lion1010NT

Sufficiently desperate attention seeking would be indistinguishable from WP:CIR -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmaine Yee

This deletion of yours puzzles me. What was wrong with what you deleted? -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There's something very wrong with that IP, if you look at their history. I had just run across them, tagging John Klass for deletion here with extensive language within the tag. Then in their comment at the AfD, which is a bit of a rant, they pulled in Klass again, among other things. I don't know who they are, but at best they are editing logged out in project space, which is a no-no. All that said, if you think their comment should be reinstated, go ahead and restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
There's something very wrong with very many IPs and user IDs, but I'd avoid removing any comment from an AfD unless it was defamatory, merely disruptive/deranged, or clearly the work of a sock. And I'd inform the perp on their talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made the article John Klass less conspicuously worthless; but, like so very many Wikipedia articles, it remains worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Heh, I know what you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Good morning.

You don't mind if I just stop by and give a good morning right? My random name picker landed on you. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ana De Armani sock?

Hello, way back on August 16 you did a mass delete of pages created by User:Aam Karoo, blocked sock of User:Ana De Armani. Those pages seem to have included Trikke Professional Mobility and Firstleaf. Both have just been recreated by Triteo, who's pumping out spam (with unnecessary dabs in title) from their sandbox at speed, but I don't have sufficient evidence visible to file an SPI. Could you please take a look when you get a minute? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your reports, at SPI or here, are a model of concision, making it so much easier for an admin or clerk to evaluate. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

another maybe?

I suspect this is the followup - [10] - just a guess of course. JarrahTree 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a good guess to me, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

user Shamrock

A year ago you blocked user Shamrock2020. Today I came across Shamrock2023. Created two months after the block and with the same massive interest in Dublin Airport. But contrary to Shamrock2020 I have seen no edit warring or other unwanted behaviour. Still, it is clear block evasion. What to do now, as the sockpuppet is of good behaviour? The Banner talk 23:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Good behavior is irrelevant. I've blocked and tagged. If they want to edit again, they wll have to request an unblock from their original account, although the block evasion will probably prevent them from being unblocked for at least six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
okido. The Banner talk 00:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey, a quick question. I want to create Water polo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament as the teams are known, the draw is out and all. But it is a redirect and there is a draft for that article which i can't move since the original article is a redirect (same for the women's article). Can i simply turn it into the article? It says "This is a redirect from a title that is in draft namespace at Draft:Water polo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, so please do not create an article from this redirect (unless moving a ready draft here). You are welcome to improve the draft article while it is being considered for inclusion in article namespace. If the draft link is a redirect, then you may boldly turn that redirect into a draft article. The topic described by this title may be more detailed than is currently provided on the target page or in a section of that page." I am a bit lost at that and don't want to make a mistake, so any help would be appreciated. Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what I did and propose is best, but I deleted the redirect, so you can take over the draft and move it whenever you like to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) By my understanding, WP:RM/TR can help in these sorts of situations, by performing a round-robin page move. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Can you do the same for the Water polo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament article or should i go the route mentioned above? Kante4 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like what I did is easier for you, so  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again. :) Kante4 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

New sock?

Hi. I've noticed your revert of a sockpuppet in here after checking a recent IP edits, I have reverted the IP per extended confirmed violation (and potential sockpuppetry given the limited articles IP edited) and also reverted the edits of ByzantineIsNotRoman's sockpuppets in those articles.

After that, an account created in December 2023 and with 30 something contributions just reverted me and restored the sockpuppet edits with deceptive edit-summaries [11], [12]. Is this a potential sockpuppet of ByzantineIsNotRoman like NuancedProwler, Kaspersky205 and SamuelLion1877 ? Do I need to open an investigation?

Regardless, I've reverted the user and left a note on their page. Looks like another user thought JeanCesarGraziani is a sockpuppet [13]. Vanezi (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to resolve this diplomatically and per Wikipedia rules. I have no clue what you are talking about with regards to the tagged users. I am sorry if I unknowingly went against a community consensus on the topics. I reverted the edits because I am following controversial articles and noticed that you did more than revert IP edits and removed some content in a sneaky way with no explanation provided. I am willing to discuss / compromise and try to figure out what I did wrong. Thank you. JeanCesarGraziani (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Vanezi Astghik: For a few reasons, I think technical corroboration is needed. Please file a report at SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
ok, done that. thank you. Vanezi (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am truly stupid.

That is something else I didn't know. Thanks for reverting my edit on the noticeboard. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I need a Wikibreak. I do feel a bit tired every day from editing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
If you feel like the mistakes you're making are from going too fast or not being able to control your impulses, then you need to slow down. If you think you're not able to slow down because of tiredness, then you should take a break. Hopefully, you know yourself enough to determine the best course of action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Right. The fact that I've been here for 3 years and yet keep making these mistakes means I probably need to apply the brakes. I'll definitely take your advice. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding mos color violation template

Hi Bbb23 ! Hope you're doing well. Can you tell me the maintenance template for color violation? Best regards! Fade258 (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No idea, don't even know what a "color violation" is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Fade258, I've used the {{Uw-mos1}} template series to warn editors about MOS:COLORS issues with their edits, with custom text to indicate the problem and point them to that MOS page. It's not perfect, but it works. Ravensfire (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Ravensfire, Thank you for your help and no worries Bbb23. Fade258 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

IP sock block

Hi there! Earlier today you blocked 219.105.84.33 for their edits to Call Me by Your Name (film), noting that they're a sock. If so, then it seems likely that 1.75.203.251 is also a sock, as they made the initial edit and their edit summary was almost identical to the one made by 219. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't responded because it was a bit more complicated. Another IP in the same range, 1.75.203.251, edited before that one. I've now blocked the range, Special:contributions/1.75.192.0/19, but only for one month as it is quite wide. May help a bit, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! At this point the article's also been indefinitely protected. DonIago (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
True, but the IPs were editing other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you happen to have access to VRT? If so, would you be willing to take a look at Ticket:2024021210007976? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

VRT is for CUs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk

I want to talk with you Ahhabib24 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

HistoriesUnveiler

Hi, since you blocked HistoriesUnveiler as a result of a sockpuppet investigation, I thought I'd point out these IP edits supporting the AfDs opened by the blocked sock. I didn't think it was worth opening an SPI thread as it's maybe just a coincidence, but maybe you want to have a look at it. Broc (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It may be block evasion, but I'm not comfortable blocking the IP without more.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
They are using proxies as it has been pointed out in their previous SPI, this IP looks clearly a duck defending the article HU created. Then if we strike the comment, they threaten an ANI, definitely well versed with policies and processes like HU. In almost every instance, they use a different IP, time allowing, I can bring many examples, but the tone, the familiarity with policies and processes is same. I am not essentially looking for a block because they are changing IP every time, I need an admin’s input if it is okay to strike their votes so they do not affect the outcome. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You do not have my permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Philodemous/VitoMocella68

Hi! You recently blocked Philodemous for disruptive editing. About two hours later LeLouptPierre made their first edit, continuing the discussion at Talk:Herculaneum papyri in very much the same manner, quickly going to personal attacks with the same content. Se e.g. diff comparison: Special:Diff/1209772411 and Special:Diff/1209847456, note the string WP:PCD WP:DISCLOSEPAY WP:PAYDISCLOSE.

Now, Philodemous, in turn, made their first edit two hours after VitoMocella68 was blocked for a username violation. (VitoMocella68 claimed not to be Vito Mocella, but to be editing on his behalf.) Philodemous denied being the same person as VitoMocella68, although he re-made the same or very similar edits (Compare Special:Diff/1209613942 with Special:Diff/1209396041 and Special:Diff/1209615732 with Special:Diff/1209566845).

I was about to file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, something I have not done before. I was not sure about how to do this, mainly whether VitoMocella68 should be reported as the "sockmaster". After all, a username violation block actually encourages the user to create a new account. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest sock, and tagged all three. I would have blocked Philodemous as a sock, but VitoMorcella68 had been soft-blocked, so I didn't, although, interestingly, the Philodemus account was created first of the three. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks you too! It was also observed that User:Svartox made their very first edit, and only edit thus far, at Herculaneum papyri and within two hours after Philodemous was blocked. The edit was very small and not disruptive, but the timing seems a bit suspicious. Would this be reason to tag Svartox, who might well be innocent, in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philodemous, or to take any other measure? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems very unlikely to me that Svartox is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully, you are right! We'll see. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You were right about @Svartox, who has confirmed his identity as a member of one of the tree runner-up teams, and I was wrong to be suspicious. See Special:Diff/1210014559. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. New suspected sockpuppet of Philodemous: User:Leftsupercazzola. Evidence:

  • Made their first edit 24 February, the morning after the puppetmaster was blocked.
  • Is now engaging in the discussion at Herculaneum papyri with seemingly the same talking points.
  • One of the four articles contributed to just happens to be "Philodemos".

I do not reckon that me engaging in the discussion with this user would be constructive. I guess they can see that they have been mentioned here, since I'm linking the username. If you have any advice, in particular or in general, I'll be grateful. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I've been staring at the comments posted by the new user at the Talk page for a while, and I'm struggling to figure out whether they "agree" with the socks' comments. Perhaps you could explain it to me more fully? Also, the new account edited other articles. I don't believe any of the socks ever edited anything but the one article and its Talk page, did they?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the comment is quite verbose and not exactly a beacon of clarity. However, some recurring things: 1) "The 2015 article", i.e. the paper by Vito Mocella et al, is a breakthrough and should be emphasized more in relation to other papers. 2) The research feud with Seales. 3) Quoting the piece from The New Yorker which is favorable towards VM. 4) The point that we other editors should reply with references to scientific articles and not just with "opinions" (about bias and conflict of interest issues, I suppose).
You are right that the other sockpuppets have not edited other articles. Since they were called out about it, I expect this to just be an evolving strategy. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I got some assistance from a CU, and the new account is now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I expect that it will continue, with a slightly evolving strategy, noting what we call them out on. And perhaps letting some time pass, in the hope that we will have stopped monitoring the page, which I understand you are also doing. I will just write here again if I get suspicious? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't hurt, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion

It looks like Talk:Ramrod (gay club) was caught in some cleanup deletions you performed last month while deal with a sock. I was going to recreate it, but I wanted to check first to see if undeletion was the preferable option. Thank you, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It has no discussion, just wikiproject assessments. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to your attention

First of all, I want to thank you for your action at SPI. Second of all, I would like to point out that, in the last few days, the user has also been evading their block by continuing discussions on the talk page of the master account under IP addresses following TPA removal by Cullen328. The edits have since been removed by Yamla, but the IPs are still unblocked -- you can see a list of those in the master's talk page history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpoin117&action=history here]. The writing style is an unmistakable case of WP:DUCK in my eyes. Whether or not they are worth blocking three days after most of them last edited I'll leave up to you, I just wanted to alert you in case you didn't know. Thank you for your administrative work here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the master's page on my watchlist as I do the sock's. Looks like Yamla is taking care of things, and, no, I don't see the need to block IPs who haven't edited in a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
OK, I just wasn't sure if you knew. Once again, thank you for your assistance at SPI. I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello Bbb23! Can you revdel this diff and the edit before it? Per RD1. Thanks! (Asking because you're listed on recently active admins.) —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 23:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's problems with deleting the first edit of the user talk, please just delete the whole thing. Sorry, I don't work with copyright very often. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 23:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking care of the trolling nonsense on my talk page, and for your work at SPI. I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

COI Requests

Hi @Bbb23!

When you can, could you please look over my 3 COI requests I've tagged you on and let me know what I need to change to be approved please?

Thanks so much!

Gresha Gresha Schuilling (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring your attention and hear your opinion. Highly appreciate.

Hi, I just got to know via sources that you banned a user called User talk:Norvikk ? If that is the case, there is a visa policy map of Turkmenistan for non-ordinary passports that this user did and is not updated, if you have the knowledge to edit the map, do you mind adding the country Singapore to the list of visa-exempt countries? Don't worry as it is not compulsory and just wanted to hear your thoughts and ideas before deciding on the next move.

Thank you so much

Yours Sincerely,

Suomi2023 Suomi2023 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
oh its okay, just wanted to hear your opinions. Thank you for answering. Suomi2023 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Arthur F. Engoron

Information icon Hello, Bbb23. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arthur F. Engoron, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

IP back at it again

Red alert, Bbb. Yesterday (according to my time zone), after I pinged you (which I know might have wasted your time anyway), that IP returned under two new ones: 2409:4072:6CO8:9F88:89D8:CCD7:D402:F22B and 2409:40F4:14:BC4C:98A8:94BD:BF85:9236. They also had the literal audacity to call us idiots, explain that a war is going on between themselves and CNMall41 since December 8 of last year, and say that they would continue to create the article, which in my opinion is all considered to have an WP:IDHT mindset. Is it possible to block them for even longer than 48 hours? I'm sure that they're definitely LOUTSOCKING. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Favonian gave a range block to them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

National Grants Management Association

The article doesn't list a single source, and a google search about it returns with no secondary source, and just website/ LinkedIn. Articles also feels indirect promotional. I think it should have been deleted under CSD a7 (No indication of importance (company or organization)) Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The article has sufficient notability to get past an A7 (sources aren't required for that), which is a much lower bar than WP:GNG. Take it to AfD if you feel it's not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Air Malta Talk Issue

'I notice on your Talk page you've done this before. More attacks of this kind may result in you being blocked, so stop it' What does this mean? Where on my talk page that I have done this before? I did not threaten 8UB3RG1N3. I just told him to be careful when editing Air Malta because he did not respect sources that were used and made grammar mistakes. Don't make such predictions. Eventually, I will not be blocked by editing if I told 8UB3RG1N3 that 8UB3RG1N3 made bad edits. I checked his talk page and he did make some bad edits. Loveheart547 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My warning to you stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Loveheart547, I just noticed you removed my comment from User talk:8UB3RG1N3. I've restored it. Don't ever do that again. You may remove warnings from your Talk page but not from other users'.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You can talk about this on my talk page. I am trying to be nice and follow the rules. SUre, why not, you can block me. Loveheart547 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

hi

hi so sorry to bother, but can you delete/rev delete something? this IP posted about CP (child p0rn) on the ANI. sorry to bother, your just the first person that pops into my mind when I think of active admins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skyeskyns Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

heres the rev https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1212424654 Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 20:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's been handled by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
alright, thanks for taking time out of ur day to look into it, tho. thanks. Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 13:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential loutsocking at Georgia Love & AfD

Hello - I've got some concerns that 2001:8003:444F:A800:4135:6278:E759:76C6 (beginning 8 March) is a loutsock of the article's creator, AnonymousUser.UnknownUser (who hasn't edited since 6 March).

This IP has edited exclusively at Georgia Love and removed the nominator's comment at the AfD here. They've also edited at Brooke Blurton, another article created by AnonymousUser.UnknownUser. Another potential IP is 2001:8003:444F:A800:4F9:6E93:2CAF:9169, though I'm unfamiliar with IPv6 and if they'd be near each other. I find it incredibly suspicious regardless that these IPs with the same first 8 digits edit pretty much ONLY at that editor's articles.

I've also got some broader concerns about their lack of response to any talk page comments for years now, only removing some warnings and speedy deletion notifications, but if needed I can just take those to the appropriate venue. Would appreciate it if you'd look into this, thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP /64 range for 3 months and the named user indefinitely. Let me know if there appears to be further problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I'll have to keep an eye on pages they've created and particularly IPs from Canberra. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Full confession

So as he asks, please take the matter with the appropriate seriousness... ——Serial Number 54129 16:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I did not even know we had a Spritz, let alone a SuperSpritz. Imagine the size of the needle. Woof! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What's in your head?

UTRS appeal #86092 is closed. 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not much last time I looked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I keep cheese in mine. -- ferret (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Shows the importance of keeping a cool head.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, being a WP:HOTHEAD opens up the possibility of fondue... The WordsmithTalk to me 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll let you try that with your head. Let us know if it oozes out your ears.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Dwinug

New sock here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/N.prophet97)? Then, should they be blocked (i'm 99% sure but not 100%, thus i come to you for assistance), they'll say it's a "vicious slander" like the other time...

Attentively, continue the great work (and apologies to all parties concerned should this be a false "sock alarm"). RevampedEditor (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98

Hi User:Bbb23

I noticed you recently blocked User:Bgsu98. Thank you very much, as per my experience and from what I’ve seen looking at their edit history, this editor has caused a lot of disruption to the site over the past year. I was wondering if you could undertake a deeper dive into their behaviour, and potential sockpuppetry as I think edit warring is just the tip of the iceberg.

many thanks. Frog Headband (talk) Frog Headband (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Αθλητικά

Hello, and thank you for taking care of the case in sockpuppet investigations.

I have added a new comment with side-by-side edits regarding User:Αθλητικά. This is a well-known sockmaster, and I was the one to make the last reports about this user as well.

Let me know if I can be of more assistance, or if you need clarifications with anything. Nevechear (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hi! I've noticed that a user you have blocked before, is block evading, restoring his versions with several sock accounts (example: 1, 2). I'm pretty sure this user is the same individual as well (restoring the same content previously added by socks 1, 2). many thanks. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Liscious2k24, but Iggyiggzis, who's made only 3 edits, is not obvious to me. I see no article intersection between them and the other two accounts. As an aside, although I appreciate the heads-up, please don't use mobile diffs in the future - I have to convert them all, and it's a bit tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wordain reincarnations

User:Wordain is running amuck as IP editors. Seems to cover a wide range (2409.40xx.*). Is there a remedy? Chaipau (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific as which IPs you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are a few:
Chaipau (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This newly created ID might be one. I've opened a new SPI here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Chaipau, sorry I meant to look at this yesterday and then forgot. Combining the 5 IPs generates a range that is too large to block (/24).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries, this is a permanent problem with this sock master. When they run out of socks they go on these sprees disrupting Wikipedia. The only option is to keep reverting and many of us are doing this, to tire them out, or for them to get a new sock to restart the cycle.
In the past this range was split into smaller ranges (say 2409:40E6/ and 2409:4065/) and then these smaller ranges were blocked from editing individual pages. This splitting did not happen by design but it happened organically. I remember there were two admins who helped with these, each handling a smaller range. Unfortunately, I forget who helped us. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Here, they are attacking real-life person(s) in the comment. [14] Chaipau (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Chaipau I've reverted their edits. I'm not sure if they'll revert me, but I hope someone else comes to the rescue. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. My bet is this will continue. Chaipau (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Duck?

Hey, remember that PLANET CRICKET sock? Have they returned?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A link to the sock would have been helpful, but I guess you mean Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SMUTSS. Don't know if it's the same person, but Hazrat Adam0 has been indeffed by Ingenuity, so it's moot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please double check this

94.15.59.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

My concern is this discussion. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 23:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you came to me with this, but I see no obvious basis for my intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
You were the first Admin listed in RecentChanges at the time. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Radio stations at CSD

HiBbb23, just curious as you have declined A7 at a couple of radio stations I have requested. In particular KEAA-LP about a defunct radio station owned by a school with zero sources. Is your opinion that radio stations are not eligible for A7 in any circumstances? AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you've been tagging a lot of long-standing articles for deletion. I'm not going to comment on the merits of each of them, but on the ones that have been declined, I suggest you go through AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure the relevance of whether an article is "long-standing" - if anything, an article that has existed without sources for 10-20 years is perhaps perfect evidence of non-notability. A little disappointing that you don't want to provide any feedback on your reasons for declining an article like KEAA-LP. AusLondonder (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted page: "Draft:Shorban Empire"

Hello, I see that you have deleted my page, for an apparent "vandalism" reason. Please note that I am not a troll, and I didn't mean to submit the article for review. This was an accident on my part. I knew that this would not be published on Wikipedia and I am not surprised at all. I am wondering if I can still have an unpublished page like this on Wikipedia, so it doesn't negatively affect anybody.

Thanks. KeymasterOne (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not possible, there's no such thing as "an unpublished page".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I am talking about the technicality where I create a draft, and don't submit it for review. KeymasterOne (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Drafts are created for the purpose of becoming articles. Wikipedia is not your playground.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi. If you remember, I was asking about potentially opening an SPI investigation and ended up doing it [15]. I wanted to ask if the SPI checks usually take so long or it's overdue for a check. Thanks. Vanezi (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been a very large CU backlog for quite some time. As I am neither a clerk nor a CU, I cannot account for when individual reports are addressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious new user

Whoop_whoop_beep_beep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This new user obviously has experience; seems fishy to me; immediately editing templates, mostly pointless edits (though not obvious vandalism). Look familiar to you? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Very unusual editor. They are likely a sock of GreatPersonLikeMe. Missing the focus on World War II, but lots of stuff involving disambig pages, plus their page intersection is quite damning considering the kinds of pages they both edit. If you look specifically at the intersection at Wikimedia Foundation, notice how both users end their edit summaries with a period. Another thing I noticed on the master's Talk page were these edits by an IP, who was very likely the user editing logged out, saying that they agreed with the master "because he made a better stylish form to make the article more understandable by any new user." Compare that to Whoop's edit at the Help desk asking how to make their username more "stylish". It's enough for me, and I've blocked Whoop accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

Hi,

So i came across this article where a new editor barely 15days old creates the article and uses the AFC template that appears as if the article was reviewed and approved. I have moved it to draft anyway, see more on the user's talk page here. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to do, but nothing leaps out at me. I've seen editors approve their own articles before. It's deceitful but not sanctionable in and of itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I just find it deceitful as well. I will keep an eye on it anyways, i just feel it may also be a case of UPE. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

Hello, remember the sock puppet AdityaGem1234 (talk · contribs) who was making the changes in cast at Junooniyatt and Udaariyaan has now returned with a new id-

Please take the required necessary action. Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential sock of User:Becausewhynothuh? (I think)

Hi, Bbb. I already messaged Ponyo about this (even though they're busy), but can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Becausewhynothuh?? Based on my thoughts, User:GymratW might be a sock of them. I've presented evidence at the investigation noticeboard, and I'm hoping you can view it as soon as possible (I assume you've never met Becausewhynothuh? before, though, but Ponyo has interacted). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You've requested a CU, and I'm not familiar with the case. The CU doesn't have to be Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah. I'm not sure which CU can deal with the case though. I know Ponyo definitely has had an interaction. But uh, I don't know if I can get any other CU to review the case. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not a function of "gettting" another CU to review the case. At some point, it will be reviewed by a CU or a clerk. There's a substantial backlog on CU requests at SPI, so I have no idea when that will be.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok. That's fine. I just have to wait patiently for that specific day. The backlog is quite big, isn't it? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Nvm, EdJohnston blocked them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A new report

Hello. Could you please check the lastest report of a user that I filed recently here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra? The editing pattern is getting similar edit to edit. Regards. Imperial[AFCND] 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gymrat16

Hi Bbb, just an FYI: I've unblocked Gymrat16. As far as I can see, the block was reasonable based on behavioural evidence but they've given us very good evidence that they're a different person in a different country, which is borne out by CU evidence. Any problems, let me know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Making amends with you

I have been unblocked by the administrators after I appealed to them and they believed I was not Moka Mo like a lot of you thought which I am grateful for. Since they are giving me a second chance now that they know the true story about my activity, I was hoping we can make peace now. I am usually not an emotionally driven person and I am usually pretty easy to get along with but I admit to have overreacted a little. Obviously trying to say repeatedly that I am not who people think I am and not being believed was difficult and I usually don't lose my cool with people but I know I did lose my cool and I am using the second chance given to me to be better at keeping my emotions under control and to hopefully make amends with those who mistook me for moka mo. I don't expect you to forgive me at least not right away but if you do then that would be great. Thank you homie for your attention and stay safe. Gymrat16 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately for me I often don't remember user "misbehavior", so not to worry, and I'm glad you got things straightened out. Best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thank you. Now that this misunderstanding is over, I was going to gradually re-add some edits i initially tried to make last summer. I will make sure they are cited well and make sense for readers and if anything isn't right I will do tweaking Gymrat16 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Bbb I do want to ask for a favor too if you don't mind since you have know been convinced of my innocence, I messaged sbaio to tell him that I am indeed a different person than moka mo or any blocked editor he thinks I am but he still doesn't believe it. I don't know what else to say so since you are an administrator, can you please reach out to him and politely tell him that I am indeed innocent? Because I don't know what else to say or do. I need character witnesses to help me at this point since he isn't believing anything I am saying and I also don't want to create anymore conflict. it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you man for your consideration.
Sincerely
Ethan Parker Gymrat16 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You should let go of your problem with Sbaio. Indeed, I don't think you should post to their Talk page unless it's required for some reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright man. I mean while I don't want to sound vindictive or anything because I am not seeking revenge or retaliation at all, I want to make that very clear because I believe in second chances for everyone since we are all human who make mistakes once in a while and I am usually an easy perosn to get along with but would it be possible to maybe temporarily block that user since you are an administrator? I mean I don't want that account to be blocked because I know he means well deep down and his accusations were in good faith even though they were wrong but if he is unwilling to let go of this issue and not make peace with me then would it be worth desperate measures? This is just an idea because I don't want any edit warring or anymore conflict on anyone but it doesn't look too promising given that he still isn't hearing me out and still accusing me of being the sock of a blocked user. Let's work together to come up with something that will make all of us happy whether it is a temporary block or just some sort of communication line or something because I have told him countless times that I am my own person, my name is Ethan Parker and not related to any blocked user and am just a die hard hockey fan who wants to show his knowledge on players and the game itself among other topics too. Thanks for your attention and consideration and hopefully we can work together to convince him.
Sincerely
Ethan Parker Gymrat16 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no interest in any of this, and I'm certainly not going to block anyone just because they disagree with you. Please stop posting here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright man well thank you anyway. I am not advocating for that at all I don't want to give out anymore wrong impressions. It was just an idea because all I want to do is bury the hatchet but it didn't seem like he did. I guess I will have to do my best and ignore him because I don't want to be a burden to you or anyone else that has forgiven me. Gymrat16 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Professional Doctor of Diplomacy

Hello, Bbb23,

I'm not sure that this article was a hoax. Here is a link to the university program at Stirling and we have an article listing these programs for advanced degrees in Diplomacy. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find that page at Stirling. The article, which I also didn't see, is a dreadful unreferenced list. I've restored the article, but it's still unsourced, which it has been apparently for years, and someone should do something with it. We have enough low-quality articles at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The completely unsourced article claims that the Professional Doctor of Diplomacy was devised by Diplomatic Academy of London, a unrecognised/unaccredited "academy" with a very poor article which consists almost exclusively of name drops of actual educational institutions ("which may be coincidental", according to the article). The unsourced List of diplomatic training institutions doesn't mention advanced degrees in diplomacy whatsoever. AusLondonder (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Why don't you send it to AfD?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, will do. AusLondonder (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

deletion of Greysheeters Anonymous

Hi, I totally respect that you deleted the page I wrote. Is there any way I can get the text I wrote so that I can add to it and try again? Thank you for considering. Neutralninja (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, I trust you are doing well. I wanted to know what the clear course of action should be for a dispute I have been involved in. Quite some time ago, I have reverted the insertion of an unreferenced statement to Aleppo: [16] I was surprised to find that the editor reverted with a lengthy personal attack [17]. They have their own interpreation of WP:VERIFY, that unreferenced statements are okay. My activity on Wikipedia has momentarily stalled, and so I appear to have failed to notice that the article is under a WP:1RR restriction. I lacked the time to start a thread on WP:ANI, and reverted once more as if it was WP:3RR. It has been four days since then, so it doesn't make sense to focus on the personal attacks. Setting aside the 1RR violation on both parties, which I was unaware of at the time, the unreferenced addition continues to stay in the article. I can't say the addition is completely supported by the article linked, and I would not like to add references for an addition I didn't make and faced a very vulgar response. Obviously, I shouldn't revert, but what would be a sensible action for this violation of WP:VERIFY? Aintabli (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I dunno, try discussing the issue on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sorry for bothering. Aintabli (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The IP you banned is being extremely disruptive in CFD

So the IP from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:185.104.63.112_reported_by_User:Smasongarrison_(Result:_Blocked) is still bouncing around and being disruptive on CFD, making multiple votes etc. I've been keeping track of the IPs on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/185.104.63.112 Any suggestions on what to do to handle it? Mason (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I blocked one IP at the SPI as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Open ANI case

As you recently helped out with a similar problem (disruptive editor ignoring warnings) I was hoping you could do us a favor and have a look at a case I raised a couple of days ago.[18] Given the user has responded to a subsequent 3RR warning [19] they have presumably read both the final warning notice and the ANI notice, but have failed to respond to either. Barry Wom (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Кронас

Hello. I was over at this user's talk page and I saw that you posted there in February regarding their page moves [20]. Just now, I became aware of a very odd page that they created [21]. It is a table laid out in columns that tracks page moves. The page has: the user who moved a particular page, what space the page originated from, the page itself in main space, and the rationale behind the move. Also, the column titles are not in English. I am wondering what is up with this? I asked for an explanation on their talk page before coming here. Also, they do not have the move page permission and not very many edits on the English Wikipedia. Although a block may be in order, I suggest taking a look to see (somehow) if he has any other history on this Wikipedia under a different user name. Very strange. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I became aware of this odd page because I just moved a page to the main space from my user space and there is a link to this ridiculous page in the "What links here" section after clicking on that. Here is the page that I moved to the main space: The 272. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So, will you be responding to or acknowledging this post? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Never mind. I just noticed they responded on their talk page. I'll take it from here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Help..

Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts.

He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times.

When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors.

First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets.

1. Stars678

2. JapanNipponTokyo19

3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643

4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e

5. 203.168.xx

6. 203.81.xx

7. 46.166.xx

8. Enjoy1999

Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times.

If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post.

At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets.

Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator.

Thank you. Lades2222 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't read the above, and I don't know what you want from me, but WP:SPI is that-a-way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz

Hi,

I am just wondering if Raymarcbadz is now considered as site banned per WP:THREESTRIKES? Also with socks appearing almost everyday, what can be done to prevent this? Thank you in advance. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure it matters as they were banned last July at a discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had sat on a response on my talk page trying to think of the appropriate level of response and actually wrote out a reply highlighting numerous issues I had. Once I hit send, my plan was to hit all the talk pages with the {{uw-agf-sock}}. Only then did I find that sometimes the simplest solution to those that aren't here in good faith is... well... you've taken care of it! My only frustration is that I didn't check for an open SPI before writing out my response. Sigh. Anyways, just popping by to thank you for the diligent work and slight talk page stalking. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Um, what are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fellow22. :) microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah - you're welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:HansWobbe

Hi there. I see that you recently blocked this user. I have no relation to this user, and I'm not going to argue against the block. I'm just wondering if you saw the discussion on their Talk page about their WP:NOTWEBHOST violations? I had spent time explaining the rule to them and it looked like they were resolving it. They had (or was planning to) delete many of the offending pages. Now I wonder if I was wasting my time with that. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that even if they were willing to clean up the stuff, they really haven't done anything positive at Wikipedia, which is why I blocked them as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

I wonder if this edit is grounds for removing TPA from user RepublicanAndProud2024? --Minoa (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand. I thought the user was using the emojis to mock you, or they were not taking the implications of the block seriously. --Minoa (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Page recreated without change that you draftified

Hello! You recently moved Ayamase to Draft:Ayamase, however, the article's creator appears to have recreated it in mainspace without changing anything. For the moment, I'm redirecting it to Draft:Ayamase, but past that, I'm not too sure what to do. Should I tag the page for speedy deletion? Please let me know! Thanks. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Silly question - please disregard. Forgot R2 existed for a moment, had G6 on the brain. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you decline G11 on Blisk?

That page was a blatant advertisement and features brochure only sourced to primary sources from the software's website itself and made by a WP:SPA who is obviously one of the developers. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the speedy deletion criteria sufficiently. And next time you challenge my decision about an article, please wikify the article (I've done it) to make it easier for me to review.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of R2dra

Hello. Could you please check the recent report I made at Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 11:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23, hello. Please check the report about Narook. Every actions of Narook has behavioural similarity to socks of R2dra. Imperial[AFCND] 08:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For a swift response to an AIV report. Thanks! TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hello @Bbb23, hope you are doing well. I needed a help, I came across this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya (2nd nomination) and this discussion is not closed and is active since March 10, now i discovered that it is not listed only, so please guide me shall the deletion discussion be listed in today's date or March 10 archives? Thankyou Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the best admin to ask as I don't patrol AfDs. Perhaps Explicit can respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I would probably also say Liz or Deb. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. It does look like this nomination was never listed correctly; yes, it should have been listed under 10 March. I've now closed the discussion as "no consensus". I would be happy for User:Liz to look at it again. Admittedly it had been deleted twice previously after a discussion that went the other way, but the last time was two years ago on the basis of "too soon". Imsaneikigai, you are welcome to open a new discussion if you wish. Deb (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou so much @Deb for your prompt action. Thankyou @Bbb23 and @NoobThreePointOh for escalating the matter to the specific expert admins. Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI

I notified the user. Judging from his other edits, he is not there to contribute. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you perhaps un-close the case? Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I've done so...reluctantly.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

AN3 report on a user

Hey @Bbb23, I thought I'd like to bring to your attention an AN3 report on a user whom you've dealt with on multiple occasions in the past. Despite your previous warnings and sanctions, they're continuing their edit warring, openly flouting Wiki guideline on talk discussions [1][2] and falsely accusing me of personal attacks as an excuse for their refusal to engage in talk discussions. --- Petextrodon (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

More hickey?

I'm not too experienced with MariaJaydHicky socks, and User talk:Changstafolife seems older than most of them, but it feels either BKFIP or Hicky. Thoughts? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoa, blocked in 2009, that's way before my time. Doesn't look at all like BKFIP to me. As to whether it was an early, undetected account of Maria, but even with just one edit, can't you link them to Maria? During my time as a CU, I ran a LOT of checks against Maria's socks, and she liked certain ranges and certain UAs. I of course don't know what she's been doing recently, but there are plenty of socks to look at even if you have only one edit of Changstafolife. As I'm typing, I decided to take a quick look at Chang's edits, and on Unappreciated (song) I saw that Mariahicky was blocked in 2011 and tagged as a sock of MariaJaydHicky; yet, Mariahicky was created on September 24, 2009, and MariaJaydHicky was created in 2011. Also Mariahicky did not challenge her block until 8 years later in 2019, similar to Changs challenging their block years later. Also Mariahicky's edit and Changs' edit to Unappreciated were identical. Here is the article intersection between the two accounts. Based on all of that, I would decline the unblock request, and tag the account as a sock. Before I do anything, though, I'll wait to hear from you about the technical evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, this one's on a range blocked for BKFIP, the only reason I brought that up. But, oh, it's easier than I thought. This one logs in right after Tabusdonny, globally blocked as a Hicky sock. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Great, so what's next?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jpgordon MJH and BKFIP have overlapping IP ranges. I've been involved in two MJH blocks the last two days though. I present this log entry, 12 minutes before that unblock request, for your eyeballs. Edit: OH whoops, you already noticed. My bad. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't really matter which miscreant is creanting misly. here, I guess. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've tagged Changs as a proven sock of MariaJaydHicky. Someone should initiate a request at Meta to globally lock the account. As for straightening out the master, we already have one account that's older than the master, and now we have two. Lucky us.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like more socks of User:StarryNightSky11

SparksyFruit's edits were picked up by JobsWorth7 (sockpuppet of StarryNightSky11) picked up by IPodUser7 picked up by 86.158.172.188. 86.158.172.188 edits further picked up at Electric chair by 6ToyoTa. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair number of dots to draw lines between, but I blocked and tagged 6ToyoTa, and blocked the IP for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
And up pops SofaSurfer77. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Baseless SPI

After coming off from the block (made by you) over battleground mentality and edit warring, The Doom Patrol has filed a baseless SPI against me here. I believe this is continuation of the poor behavior that got him blocked just 4 days ago. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2024 (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. MiztuhX (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sock group

Hi Bbb23. Hope you are well. We have been in touch in a looooong time. At pt_wiki we are dealing with a group of socks, most of which are now blocked. One account that intersects with said group is Juan Bosch Trujillo whom you blocked last month. I can't find any block discussion to see what accounts Juan Bosch Trujillo is linked to (possibly 1 or 2 or []?). The reason Trujillo came up is because he uses Hold On Angola as a source, as do the confirmed socks. On closer inspection, I see that the account invariably adds El Universal Digital and El Grafico del Sur as sources where it edits. Could be related to account Natanael Perez. For what it is worth, the group I referred to above is here. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You should look at the userpage for Trujillo. On March 20, I tagged him as a master account with a couple of tagged socks. On March 24, CactusWriter added another tag that Trujillo was a suspected sock of Febin96, and Febin96 had been CU-blocked by Drmies in 2021 with the edit summary "UPE, see User:ForWEknowIs and User:HǎoXde". If you want to figure all that out, have fun. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again

Sockpuppet of Udaariyaan is back: Hestest1234 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. In future, it'd be easier for me if you'd call it a sock of Pallavi.p.g28, the name of the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou so much, will surely do that next time. Imsaneikigai (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

'Sexteto Cafe' Deletion

Hello Bbb23, Thank you for reading my article about the group 'Sexteto Cafe'. I notice it was flagged for deletion.

How may I revise the article to better suit the wikipedia? ElDiscord (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Levi Kambai

@Bbb23: I see that User:Levi Kambai caused trouble on your userpage. Your not the only one that he has caused trouble with, he illegally copied part of my userpage yesterday. This is the second time that an editor has done this to me which is very rude. Catfurball (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

They shouldn't be copying your userpage, but you should not use words like "illegally", which has no meaning in Wikipedia. Also, you should not be bandying about words like "banned" on their Talk page, which is the wrong word and a tad aggressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

How is AIV the wrong venue

The disruption on Camila Andrade is quite ongoing and those users should be blocked. I just didn't feel like indiviually listing all 10 of them @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Did, no response, but thosew are different issues. One is the page should be protected, the other is the vandals should be blocked @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you did, but someone else filed at RFPP, and I reviewed it just now, and semi-protected the article for one week. If you think there are enough edits by individual IPs, enough warnings, etc., then you can report them individually at WP:AIV. I didn't look at them, but I seriously doubt you can make a case for blocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty clear they're all the same person @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, let it go. Your account is a few weeks old; I'm sure you know better than I. BTW, don't ping me on my own Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I never said I knew better, it just seemed pretty obvious to me that they were the same considering they are all adding nonsense in spanish and as soon as one stops the next one starts Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_61&oldid=1219924214"