User talk:Bbb23/Archive 31

More harassment of TheRedPenOfDoom by Andy Dingley

A while back you said that if Andy Dingley persisted in harassing RedPenOfDoom then you would block him. He is now edit-warring with RedPen to add unsourced content to an article against WP:BURDEN. [1] I would ask you to think about blocking him. We've all had enough of this guy. 82.132.221.233 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Per his vacation note at the top of this page, 82.132.221.233, Bbb23 will be away for the next few weeks. Maybe you should try another admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hello. I believe that it is likely that DallyKale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user as previously banned José Antonio Zapato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the leap into the same editing area that JAZ was editing tendentiously in and that JAZ was no stranger to sockpuppets. Would you do me a favour by giving it a look and telling me if that's plausible? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And here's me only just now noticing the vacation notice. My bad! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ximena Duque

Hello. Could you protect the article by Ximena Duque?. User Duduty96 is doing vandalism with different ips. And I don't know what to do.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Offender9000

Thanks for following up on this guy's latest crop of sockpuppets. I've reverted their edits (the usual collection of POV pushing and BLP violations), and blocked a couple of other WP:DUCK sockpuppets who turned up as part of this. Apologies for the wrongful templating for the accounts I blocked previously - I meant to use {{sockpuppet|blocked}} instead of {{sockpuppet|confirmed}}. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for the explanation about the templating. As it turns out, it was somewhat prescient.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User rights

Bbb23, one more thing. I am also disappointed by the unilateral removal of my autopatrolled rights by an admin without any discussion or explanation, but only with prejudice that I am a spammer with the certain user rights. I have earned that status with my new pages patrolling, which was recognized by the community. --BiH (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Remembering an ARE report

I was thinking of this ARE report some days ago, although you were on a break, you still remember that one? Have a good one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello Bbb23, Shay2570 (talk · contribs) is being used to evade your block on Itaykaufman12 (talk · contribs)... JMHamo (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Thanks for the heads up. I have a feeling we're not done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Regarding your question at WP:AN, I blocked Morlvi471 as a sock of the repeatedly blocked IP editor who usually edits from the 80.246.133.* and 80.246.130.* ranges. Here are three random IPs from my PC's cache: (1) 80.246.133.234, (2) 80.246.130.247, (3) 80.246.130.39. The first two IPs are currently blocked, so registering and editing under a new username is block evasion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't another named account that you thought was involved before I tag the accounts I blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Neologismist01/Neologismist (UTRS appeal #13680)

Hi! These two accounts were CU confirmed to each other but not to anyone else I can see. The user filed an UTRS appeal. I looked over contributions from either account and I don't see anything particularly bad (let alone blockable) and the accounts don't appear to have been used for malicious purposes. Can you enlighten me as to any other reasons for the blocks, and/or do you have any objections to seeing one of the accounts unblocked (Neologismist seems to be the one the user dsires to continue using)? Thanks in advance. If you want to engage with the user directly in the UTRS ticket beforehand let me know and I'll release it for you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Neologismist appears to have been blocked as per WP:DUCK after a previous SPI, so the Neologismist01 account constituted block evasion. User:OhNoitsJamie should understand the situation a bit more, since they dealt with it at that time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• But Neo01 only edited once, well before Neo was blocked (???). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Neologismist is the master having been created and edited back in 2011. Neologismist01 was created and made one edit on March 6, 2015. Neologismist was blocked by OhNoitsJamie on April 23, 2015. Obviously, Neologismist01's block could not be block evasion. It's simple sock puppetry. However, @Salvidrim!, if you believe the edits by both accounts were not disruptive, I see no reason why not to unblock Neologismist. I'd, of course, leave the puppet account blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable to me also. I'll take some more time to review the edits in-depth and compare them to the Sju Hav socks just to make sure and proceed tomorrow probably. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back... here's a little mess that could use mopping up

Can you please comment on CuteOrangeKittyCat's edits? [2], [3], [4], [5]. Discussion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sorry it took so long. I had to confirm something first before taking action.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know your plans

I was about to block User:Samidotkhan until I saw you delete their article. I'll hold off if you have a different plan. Tiderolls 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Heh, right after I deleted the article, I indeffed him as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw. I should've blocked them yesterday but they had just been blocked for 24 hrs and I thought, 'maybe you're wrong about them, Tide.' I wasn't. Tiderolls 01:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about IP block exemption

Hi. Where can I submit a request for IP block exemption right? I want to edit through proxy/vpn. Due to my internet service problems, I really need this future/user right. I'll discuss the details in my request. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Zyma: Read WP:EXEMPT. Your request appears to be part of condition 2, and I would read that too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I read it, but I don't know what to do. Send an email to all responsible/checkuser admins? --Zyma (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be fun for the recipients. The policy says to use WP:UTRS. Sometimes you can shorten the process by asking an administrator or checkuser who knows you well.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I want Used for anonymous proxy editing feature/user right. It says "Email the functionaries team or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies." So just write my rationale for granting and contact a checkuser via his/her talk page? --Zyma (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I was reading the wrong section. You can either contact the Functionaries team or contact a checkuser directly. I'd take care of it for you if I felt more comfortable doing so, but I simply don't feel I understand how I'm supposed to evaluate these requests. Do you know a checkuser? If not, do you want to contact the Functionaries team, or do you want me to recommend a checkuser to go to? I think it might be better if you contact a checkuser to do so by e-mail rather than through their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Used for anonymous proxy editing, a checkuser admin (like you) decides about my request and approves/disapproves it, if the request is approved, then checkuser grants the user right to requester. If consultation is necessary, you can send a copy of my request to other related functionaries (admins who decide about this user right). I think admin Dougweller can help too. I will send my request (fully detailed and rationales) by email. Would you please review it? --Zyma (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just e-mail Doug. I don't need to review it. If Doug needs anything from me, he knows where to find me. As an arbitrator, he is automatically a checkuser, although I don't think he uses the tool.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Bbb23 (talk)

I'll be happy to approve it, but I'm not sure your username can be "UTRS23"... your UTRS account name is what is used when signing replies and "UTRS23" kinda makes it seem like we're not humans, just numbered responders, y'know? Lemme know what I can rename you to, either Bbb23 or something similar -- most UTRS volunteers have UTRS account names close to their on-wiki name for the skae of simplicity and transparency (although not always exactly the same). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have chosen my Wikipedia username, but I wasn't sure if I could/should. That would be fine with me. Would the password I chose be the same if you rename it?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done and done -- it shouldn't have changed the password, lemme know if you have trouble logging in! I will ask DQ to flag you as CU (I'm tooladmin but only tooldevs can flag CUs). Welcome aboard! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Log in works fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding the closure of the recent Tirgil34 SPI and notes on Bamsi2929 case

Hi Bbb23, welcome back from vacation and congratulations on becoming a CheckUser. I've noticed that you archived the recent Tirgil34 SPI after it was closed by Berean Hunter as a WP:TLDR. Though the investigation certainly became too large, i still think some of the users listed should be checked. Would filing a new shorter investigation with more concicely presented evidence be problematic? I also added some comments to the Bamsi2929 SPI which could be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: In response to your question about the Tirgil34 SPI, I think you should ask Berean Hunter if you haven't done so already. As for the other SPI, thanks for your comments. Could you please go back and sign them? --Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I did initially ask Berean Hunter, and he has now stated that he has no objections to a refile. I have now performed that refile. If it is still WP:TLDR, please tell me. If the investigation is deeemed valid, i encourage you to perform the check, as you have previous experience dealing with Tirgil34 SPI's. On a sidenote, why was there no sanctions against Uniquark9 following the previous investigation against him? While you were on vacation i took the liberty of changing the tag on his sock BillKillB.[6] Krakkos (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ani

[[7]] not cause you did anything wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I Just Wanna... (Elijah Blake song)

Hi. The title says "I Just Wanna... (Elijah Blake song)", while the lead sections says "..is a song by American recording artist Nicki Minaj". That is why I tagged it as a hoax. --BiH (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, wouldn't it have been better to fix it (I just did)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just made an additional fix. I wanted to check with you as I presumed you did not notice the issue --BiH (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're correct; I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Zurich00swiss and their socks

As you today closed the latest SPI for Zurich00swiss and previously confirmed that User:Newdestination was a sock, would you take a look at the defence of Newdestination just placed on my talk page here by User:Wjkxy? Is it worth further examination? Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@RichardOSmith: The accounts are not related. My guess is the two users shared a common article interest and a common language. Take a look at Wjkxy's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes - it looks like Wjkxy is mistaken but not otherwise related. Many thanks for checking, and putting my mind at ease! RichardOSmith (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A question

I'm interested in becoming an SPI clerk trainee. That said, I wouldn't want to put my name on the consideration list if it meant I'd be skewered by admins and/or other editors at the request page. You've been harsh with me (in what I feel are fair and unfair ways) in the past regarding certain things, including SPI reports I've filed. Because of that, I'm asking for your opinion on whether or not it would be wise for me to put my name on the request trainee status list or foolhardy on my part - I believe you would give an honest opinion. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Sorry, but I don't think you have the right temperament or judgment to be an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, one must already have all the qualifications to be a clerk in order to be a clerk trainee? I thought the idea of one being a trainee is that they are molded into the position they would take, with the training period designed to get them there. And, if after the training is completed they still don't have what it takes, they aren't promoted to the position. What's the point of training if one already has the qualifications? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect trainees to be fully qualified. Some experience with SPIs helps, but you actually have that, which is a positive. My comment refers to temperament and judgment. I expect a trainee to have that from the get-go as it's not generally something that can be easily "trained".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Temperament" is something that is best observed and assessed in person. That's not something we can do in Wikipedia via text on a computer screen. Not always portraying my actual temperament (which is typically quite calm and flat, to be honest) precisely through what I write is something I have been working on steadily since I started editing Wikipedia and commenting on talk pages and in edit summaries. My personal assessment is that I have improved in that area and will continue to work on doing so -- that's part of growing as an editor and a human being. That's something that can and will change for me with time -- my "evolution" so to speak. Judgement: same. We all have a learning curve. We all have the ability to make progress in various areas -- editing, communicating, understanding of policies, etc. No one comes here perfect, and I don't believe trainees should come perfect, either. I'm trainable and moldable and when given a challenge to succeed, typically do so in a big way. Ah, well. Thanks for your time,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Daft SPI

I seem to have obliterated part of a previous entry. Not intentional. I was adding some pertinent points and must have misplaced the cursor. Easily done. I didn't realise the case had already received attention as I went straight to the SPI after seeing one of the edits in my watchlist. So, apologies for the error but it must be obvious to you that it was an error. Okay? Anyway, thanks for attending to the case so quickly: it usually takes a few days. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on your history, I assumed it was an error, but I still felt the need to be a bit sharp in my edit summary. Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all right. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Account deletion

I don't really know how you did it but you managed to delete Wikipedia account of my business partner John I. whom we share office together. How can he claim his account back? I feel really bad that because of vendetta of some admins against me John lost his account... Wiki-shield (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which account are you talking about (the username)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just spoke to him and it looks like his account (Mishash) is not deleted, he still can access it. I just got confused by "user doesn't exist" message when I clicked on account link, apparently John never bothered to create his user page in WP. My apology for false acquisition and I will remove my offensive message from Sockpuppet_investigations page, sorry I just got really pissed off that John got affected by my issues with WP. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A few things you should know. First, technically accounts are never really deleted at Wikipedia; they are blocked if Wikiipedia wants to prevent a person from editing. Second, just because Mishash is currently unblocked doesn't mean the account will remain unblocked. That determination hasn't yet been made. Finally, if Mishash is blocked, the block can be appealed. You have to understand that many people say that a second account belongs to someone in their household or, in this case, their office, but it's often simply not true. I'm not expressing an opinion at this point in time whether what you say is or is not true, just trying to make you understand how things work.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In my case I don't really care if my account is blocked or deleted as after dealing with editor wars, personal bashing, and other WP dirty realities, I'm certainly done with WP editing. To be honest, I don't think John cares about his WP account either, he is just another naive person (like I was 3 months ago) who thinks highly of WP but it's only a matter of time until he stumbles upon some seasoned WP editor with hidden agenda and gets involved in editor wars trying to prevent manipulation and misrepresentation of facts... I think we better focus on our patients :) Wiki-shield (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Your patients are more important than Wikipedia anyway. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kitty Genovese

Would you please take a look at this? Richard Arthur Norton has decided that the information and reference connected to the image in the infobox is "metadata" and shouldn't be included. Per WP:BRD I Reverted his Bold edit and asked him to start a Discussion, which he did, but he also, in violation of BRD, reverted to his preferred version. He keeps restoring the article to his preferred version without a talk page consensus to do so. (BRD specifies that the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.) I would appreciate it if you could -- if you think it is appropriate -- let RAN know that the article should return to the status it was in before he changed it, that his personal opinion about whether the additional information should be there or not is not controlling, and that he should wait to have a consensus on the talk page before making the change? I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted.

If you feel you'd rather not get involved, for whatever reason, that's fine, I just want to handle this quietly and not make a big megillah out of it, BMK (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the image which was in the article was File:KittyGenovese.JPG which was hosted on Wikipedia because it was a non-free file, having come from The New York Times. RAN replaced it with File:Kitty Genovese circa 1964.jpg, the same image (albeit a better version) which he uploaded on Commons as coming from The Nation and The New York Times. His rationale was that it was uploaded without a copyright notice, but of course, those periodicals are copyrighted in total, so the image is also copyrighted. In any event, it appears that he uploaded it on Commons to avoid his restriction on uploading images on Wikipedia, which I suppose is legal, but hardly within the spirit of his restriction. BMK (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion on Commons as clearly a copyrighted image, but have re-uploaded the better version here on Wikipedia, replacing the older version (which was a scan from the newspaper) - again as a non-free image, which it is. BMK (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I don't mean to ignore you, but I'm busier than usual and have zero time to look into other more-than-simple matters at the moment unless it's urgent and can't be dealt with by someone else (unlikely).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, undersrtood, thank for for the response. BMK (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Accidental fumble finger revert on an insensitive tablet there. Sorry. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 I need your help and some advice about possible sockpuppetry

Hi Bbb23,

I need your help and some advice about possible sockpuppetry. I am also going to ping User:PBS @PBS so that he may have advice as well, or if you are really busy just now.

There has been ongoing disputes, edit warring, blatant blp issues, NPA's up to like 3 now from one certain editor.in and around the article for a pianist here at en wikipedia, as well as the blp board, edit warring boards (reports by two different editors about the same James Rhodes (pianist) article, page protection board, where @CambridgeBayWeather saw all the blp issuesthat were going on at the time she judged the need for protection there at the pianist article. User:CambridgeBayWeather in her admin role semi-protected the article for one week, then there were three WP:NPA violations against him, which I warned the editor on his talk page on two occasions.

Since then the editor has struck up a whole band of possible sock monkeys to help defend him, and also some of the ones have made personal attacks againt me as well in the ani the editor filed. I have been trying to state what has actually happened over this while, but there is so much disruption, attacking, and lacking good faith by him and some others there.

I just got to thinking this is so weird. All the possible soccy editors seemed to be acting in concert in how the flow of things went there so far. I just kept my thoughts about all this to myself until now, but it occurred to me to check the block log of this editor to see if he had ever had any trouble with issues that he may have been blocked for. I asked him about the two blocks listed in the report. One block was for 72 hours and the next block was an INdeffinent. block. I noticed the offenses listed was sock puppeting and abusing multiple accounts.

When I asked him about the sockpuppetry charge in the ani, he said something to the effect that "he was testing wikipedias security" by "setting up some vandalism only accounts" to test security. You could read his exact storyline that he posted on there. Are editors allowed to "test security" by making up sockpuppets to vandalize editors, articles and such? Is he really working for you as a clerk or something?

To paraphrase, he said at ani it was just a couple of accounts, maybe 2 just to test with. I took his word on that for awhile, but then I took a break from making new articles, to just try typing his editor name and sockpuppet in wp search. This is what I found, it had your name on it so I thought you would be the perfect person to explain to me how this works exactly. [title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181/Archive&oldid=663847791]

Maybe I am not reading the pages and archives correctly since I do not follow the spi reports very often. I see people speak of a duck rule, and or diffs of evidence is needed to request an investigation. I do not know myself is all this meets the duck rule or if there is any real evidence that this user may be continuing to abuse multi accounts or not, But I was stunned to se reports on his archive go back to januaey and the latest one was around may 18. Could you read this over if you have time to see if it warrants asking for all this to be checked on. I do not know how to do a spi report. I am not sure if it can be added on to the ongoing list that goes back several months? Please look it over and let me know something. I am going to work offline on my new article sets tonight, and upload them tomorrow or the next day. I have been doing a series of articles about different writers around the world, and then I make a few stubs from red links in the one about the writer.

This is all very discouraging. [8] Thank you.

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[9]

Just a quick answer. No, I don't have the time for this. Also, diffs to the ANI and to the editor (Joseph3202) would have been helpful so I didn't have to dig. Finally, Joseph3202 is not acting as my clerk; that's pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Before either Bbb23 or PBS respond, you both might want to be aware of this [10] happening at AN/I as a side discussion regarding the situation W17 is referring to. I'm not even going to speculate as to whether W17's claim of possible sockpuppetry occurring is related to how that discussion about him at AN/I is developing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so people know, some of the above isn't true. I was blocked for 72 hours for using multiple accounts, but contrary to what they keep saying here and at WP:ANI, I was not indef blocked for sockpuppetry, but for a possible compromised account (it wasn't compromised). Nevertheless, if people want to run a CU on me to prove these accusations are ridiculous then by all means do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that User:WordSeventeen has now been blocked for Wikihounding/harassment, the last action of which was to file this sockpuppet investigation against me after another admin had dismissed it as rubbish. Feel free to delete/archive this thread as necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Linda Siegel

Hi Bbb23, I was in the middle of editing the Linda Siegel article, when you deleted it, so have recreated it. I hope this doesn't break any rules. I came across this after an editor called Taeyebaar suggested this as a worthwhile subject, from links through Anne Castles which article I created as part of the Women of Science Wikibomb. I see now that there is some controversy and edit-warring going on on this matter, and despite believing that Linda Siegel is a notable topic, I will leave it to your judgement waht to do with the recreated article - which by the way, I think I have edited down to be more neutral. regardsGaryvines (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Garyvines: No problem. An editor may recreate an article deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as long as they take responsibility for the article. Thanks for checking with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, you're faster than the speed of light :). I was working on fixing that article at the same time as`Garyvines. 'Twas a bit of a shock when I hit "Show preview" and found it was no more. If he hadn't re-created it, I would have. Siegel is a prominent academic in the field of learning disabilities and certainly worth an article, especially one without that bizarre coatrack created by the sock. Anyhow, it's now a proper biography, so all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You declined my request for a CU on Orcohen45, on the grounds that he had already been identified as a sock of a different puppeteer. However, looking at the identified master account, Itaykaufman12, I see that this both post-dates, and repeats the edits of, the account I posited as the puppeteer, Morbenmoshe. Further, identified socks of Itaykaufman have names suggesting that they are also socks of Morbenmoshe. Could you possibly look at this again, and integrate the two accounts and their identified socks, preferably under the name of the earliest account. RolandR (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@RolandR: No to all. Orcohen45 is  Confirmed to Itaykaufman12, and Morbenmoshe is  Unrelated to Orcohen45. There's nothing to "integrate", and there's no reason to revisit this issue. Also, I removed the tag you placed at Morbenmoshe as there is no basis for the tag. Nor is it your job to tag userpages with sock templates. That is done by an administrator or an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point to the following edits. On Herut: Orcohen[11][12]; Morbenmoshe[13]; apparent Morbenmoshe sock 80.246.133.64 (active at the same time, one of several blocked IPs associated with Morbennoshe)[14]. On Gahal: Orbencohen[15]; apparent Morbenmoshe sock 87.69.198.92 [16]. See also, for instance this edit by confirmed Itaykaufman sock Gffgdhfg Although the herut remain the same party from her beginning until the end she experienced ideological changes and through the years she got moderated[17] and this edit (to a different article) by Morbenmoshe Althoug begin was never extreme in his opinions he was right-wing until 1965 when he foubd gahal when he moderated his opinion and became center-right wing[18]. See also these edit summaries: by Morbenmoshe it is not true the herut was a small party until the 1960s. and only in the 1960's she became the major party. even the source doesnt say that,[19] how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia[20]; by Orbencohen im not sockpuppet im just stating facts the herut was not the major party until 1988 if the likud was already in the israeli minister in 1977.[21]

Further, this AIN report by Itaykaufman sock Shay2570[22] is remarkably similar to this post on Talk:Main page[23] by suspected Morbenmoshe sock 76.12.140.114. It's also worth noting that one of the confirmed socks of Itaykaufman is Morbendavid, a name extremely similar to Morbenmoshe.

So what we have here is either one puppeteer mistakenly identified as two, or two puppeteers with the same obsession with the alleged difference between Gahal and Herut, the same weak grasp of English, an almost identical pattern of edit summaries, similar user names, and similar attacks on editors perceived to be hostile. I would also like to ask the opinions of Number 57 and Malik Shabazz, two admins who were involved in combatting last week's spate of edit-warring and sockpuppetry on these articles, and who may be able to confirm my suspicions. RolandR (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Knock knock

Funny Incredibly lame inside joke: you can judge how long you've been on wikibreak by the version of Chrome popping up in your CU checks. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It's good to know we have any insider jokes, even lame ones. What I want to know is what you're doing on-wiki? Does this mean I can pester you again (your busy message is gone, too)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this Sisyphus has managed to roll the giant rock to the top of the hill and it's holding steady there...for now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request

I don't want to go to WP:AN on this since WP:AN often is more trouble than it's worth, especially since it's minor, but User:Winklevi who was brought up at the edit warring 3RR board has been harassing me after I told him three times now not to post on my talk page, at a recent AFD he nominated, he's harassed any user who voted "keep", and he really needs to learn how to accurately apply policies and guidelines since he has exhibited very little understanding of what they actually are (and hope some exist that in reality don't). Could you please warn him to (a) stay away from my talk page, (b) stop making threats lightly about blocking and violating policy and (c) actually learn the policies he's trying to demand others follow but has completely misunderstood. His behavior in these three areas is disruptive, in my opinion, and frankly I find all interaction with him to be frustrating and futile so I would prefer not having to interact. Thank you for any help you can offer. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, before you jump to conclusions based only on what JTV has written above, please look at every one of JTV's edits over the last few days and you will find that roughly 95% of them have been personal attacks toward me directly or about me in talk page comments, noticeboard comments, and edit summaries. I tried to reason with him days ago and asked him politely to stop. He continued. I tried ignoring him. He persisted. Today, at an AfD discussion, I decided I had taken enough of his abuse. I warned him (went straight to level 3 because I had warned him several times a few days ago). He persisted his personal attacks and non-AGF comments in his edit summaries. One could even say he's been hounding my edits to some degree, as he shows up where he's never edited previously, making rude comments and insults. Further, it would seem from this comment by JTV that I'm not the only editor at whom he has launched insults [24]. My plan is to file a report later today when I have time to get diffs together. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you want to file a report go ahead, just be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG since (a) you're a difficult editor to deal with (b) you don't have clean hands and (c) you're not liked by several of the editors on the pages I've run into you on who also have had difficulty with you. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have only one brief comment. Winkelvi, if JackTheVicar has asked you not to post on this Talk page, don't. As to everything else, I'll let you folk deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23: I weighed the question of whether I should put the warning template there because I need to notify editors adequately before filing a report against not doing it because he demanded (rudely in edit summaries) that I not post there. I decided to err on the side of caution lest I be told any report I would file at a noticeboard was premature or out of line because I had not adequately warned him. It is my understanding that even when an editor has asked another editor to stay off their talk page, it is acceptable practice to place warning templates when necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WV, standard practice is to ask a neutral party to do it for you. I appeared hear to ask Bbb23 to intervene because of his familiarity with your AN 3RR issue, and I value Bbb23's fairness and approach (although we've never interacted, I've observed Bbb23's input on other matters). If you want to bring a report, go right ahead, I've already talked to 10 other users who are ready to discuss your disruptive and unproductive behavior, most you've crossed during the last few days. There are a lot of people who like me. Again, I advise you to heed WP:BOOMERANG. Post on my talk page again--anything, from a warning to a barnstar, and I will take it as harassment. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You previously closed out this [25] investigation on GingerBreadHarlot. At the time you indicated, correctly IMO, that the case hadn't been made. With recent edits, however, at Leo Frank it appears that the case can now be made. Another user opened this [26]. I'm not sure how much the original statement adds, but in the other comments section I have added details that the originator probably was not aware of. In any event, any action you feel appropriate to take would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@North Shoreman: Since I became a checkuser, I act only occasionally as a clerk at SPI. Based on the current report, a CU would not be warranted because everything is stale and we don't publicly disclose connections between IPs and registered users. That said, my superficial take is the filer is going to have some trouble because of the age of the IPs' edits, and you're going to have some trouble because of the complexity of your behavioral analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It appears the referral is going to die a quiet death. Meanwhile, the RFC started at Leo Frank could serve as an example of what happens when sockpuppets go unchecked. The IP, GingerBreadHarlot, and a third user, Gulbenk (who started posting at Leo Frank soon after the last puppet of Machn was blocked) are all making the same arguments and playing off each other. I understand what you mean about complexity -- we all have to choose where we can best utilize our time while on wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Interuniversalism

Hi. I see you just concluded a sockpuppet investigation on Interuniversalism interested accounts. I have just been contacted by User:Masoudnbox about editting Mohammad Ali Taheri who is closely associated with the subject. This editor just popped up so the timimg looks a little suspicious but I'm not otherwise really familiar with the goings on with this case of multiple accounting so I I thought I would mention it to you as somebody who might be more familiar. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: At this point I'm not taking any action, but I appreciate the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi Bbb23, It seems to me Dan9482 (talk · contribs) is probably a sock of blocked user Dan9122 (talk · contribs). Babitaarora ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Babitaarora: Seems to me, too. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Acquanetta

I got your message, and I will post the substantiation in due course. Since I am talking about well-documented family history, I will supply a photo of Acquanetta (Mildred Davenport) with her 3 older sisters, my mother (Carolyn Davenport Moore - well-known in World War II Era Philadelphia, as easily researched), my aunt Winifred Davenport Barnes, and my aunt Katharine Davenport Williams - both married to prominant physicians, respectively in New York and San Francisco, and whose children are also physicians. Unfortunately, they are now all deceased. Side-by-side, you will see how transparent is the myth of Acquanetta's 'adoption'. She was born in Newberry, South Carolina, along with the rest, before moving to Norristown, PA, where Judge Horace A. Davenport was senior judge on the Montgomery County Court for decades, near where he still lives. His daughter, Alice Kathryn Davenport, is married to Roderick (Rick) Ireland, recently retired Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Incidentally, Acquanetta's cousin, Francis Davenport Finney, from Newberry, now Columbia, South Carolina, and wife of retired Chief Justice Earnest Finney of the South Carolina Supreme Court, can confirm all facts I have stated - if you want to do your own investigation. These are all verifiable facts, as is my own identity as Richard H. Moore, son of Carolyn and Clifford Roscoe Moore, Sr., Esq., co-counsel with Thurgood Marshall in the Trenton Six Case (actually lead counsel), and former U.S. Commissioner for Trenton, who died in 1956 (frontpage story from around July 17 or 18 in the Trenton Times archives). I'm a graduate of Antioch, Harvard, and the Wharton School - also easily verified. FYI, my brother is publisher and editor of the Montgomery News, Rocky Hil, NJ. You can contact him as well. Do you have the temerity to suggest that I am lying, or not verifying my facts! Seriously, you need to get real. But, I shall in due course supply evidence. In the meanwhile, you should understand that the era of hiding one's 'racial' ancestry is over - so stop aiding and abetting bigotry, unless that is exactly what you intend to do. Omnist (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)omnist

"Not my job"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just because I'm not an admin, why can't I tag someone's page with the sock tag when they admitted to it? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As you say, because you're not an administrator nor an SPI clerk. Please don't do it again. If you really think a userpage should be tagged, then approach the blocking admin and ask about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter that I'm not an admin? It doesn't make sense for there to be any rule against that, especially when the user admitted to being a sock and CheckUser confirmed it. And I've seen plenty of other cases where non-admins have done the exact same thing as me. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so, but when I see it, I revert, and if you continue to do it after being told not to, I consider it disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Why can only admins tag a user page with the sock tag, even in obvious cases? That just seems counterproductive if there's any importance to keeping track of a sockpuppeteer's puppets, which I would say there usually is. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging and I found absolutely nothing that said that only admins can tag a sock's page. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The page you linked to has "Administrators instructions" in the title, and the template documentation states, "This template is placed on the user pages of accounts which are sockpuppets, usually by patrolling administrators at SPI." The documentation also instructs editors using the template to use {{Sockpuppet|MASTER}} if "[y]ou think the account is a sock, but aren't sure and you haven't blocked it". That must be directed at administrators, because only administrators (and bureaucrats) can block a user. Additionally, the documentation for Template:Sockmaster is a bit more clear and says, "In general, this template should only be used by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process." It may not be spelled out in a policy or guideline somewhere, but it is fairly clear after looking at the big picture that the template is intended for administrators. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Inks.LWC: I can respect rules, but that still doesn't explain why those rules exist in the first place. As I've said, this is a case where the socks have been confirmed by CheckUser and the user has also admitted to some of them. So as I also said, it really seems counterproductive if there's any importance to keeping track of a sockpuppeteer's puppets, and I'd love an explanation that actually answers my question as to what's so bad about non-admins tagging a socks' pages. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ray Ray Lowry.jpg

I've deleted this per your link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Homie The D.O.C. User:The 2 one 3 also had this image on their page. INeverCry 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Thanks very much, I'll follow up on that. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Velliscig

For you new user are stupid, or no important because they make only a few editing?? <<which doesn't seem to interest hardly anyone?>>[400 visit is no one???] Thank you. --Mentelucida (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mentelucida: Don't be silly. I've never said anything about stupid or unimportant. The comment about not interesting anyone doesn't refer to anything but the number of editors who have the article on their watchlist. Page view statistics aren't very telling. And don't tag the article again out of pique. It's disruptive and can lead to sanctions. I've removed the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I know if I'm Italian or German, or not??! On that page are written UNTRUE. There are no references that prove the German origin. I am the author of the page (you can check by IP) there are no changes from other editors, as you said (except Truth200), my surname is velliscig and I do not allow there are allegations about my origins. You are not writing a nikname, but to an individual person with legal powers. So, if you don't wont block Truth200, please leave the immediate cancellation template of that page if you do not want to be prosecuted for defamation. Thank you.

NSA Cluj

Hello,

The page I created about NSA Cluj was deleted, and I can not understand why information about an organisation(which is what the article contained) is considered unimportant. The article should be the only information of said organisation in the cyber world, except for a Facebook group. I am of the opinion that an existing page of that nature on Wikipedia would provide the basic information about the association for people that may need it.

I cited no reference because aside from confirming the founding year and founding president from a member of NSA, the information is originally mine because there is no other place on the internet that I know of to get it.

Waiting for a reply,

Good evening.Hava A. N. Rosenfeld (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not that the association is unimportant, It's simply not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia or probably any encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not exist as a platform solely for people to obtain information because they can't obtain information on the Internet about the subject anywhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know

I hate it when I've filed an SPI, I'm certain the CU will yield a positive, and then it comes back unrelated. I hate it, because I feel horrible I've accused someone of socking when they weren't. Just so you know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could apologize if you wish to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Already did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant to FrozenFan2.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I had already started to do that before I responded to you here, got distracted by something real life. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw it just now. It does you credit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vincenzo714

Hello, Bbb23. Are you sure you meant to close the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a#06 June 2015 (that is, the report for Vincenzo714) with no action? Though technical evidence did not link the account to 036386536a, the behavioural evidence was a perfect match. The clerk agreed and requested a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

He's got a point - I may not have found any technical evidence, but the behavioural evidence was fairly compelling, and should probably be considered. CU isn't magic pixie dust, as the saying goes. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I reopened it with a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Warn/block

Hey Bbb, did you notice that the pulldown menu for warnings now no longer includes blocks, and that this is a separate tab? Is this new, or is this some erroneous setting in my preferences or something? I tried finding a note on VPP, AN, ANI, but nothing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed, but mine is apparently worse than yours. I don't see a separate tab. I opened a topic at WT:TW.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just blocked User talk:FHCI2.0, but because there was no talk page I can't leave a block notice. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Heh, you know there are other ways to do it without Twinkle, not that I'm any less lazy than you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Peskin Wikipedia Page

Hello, I was told that you would be the person to get into contact with about cleaning up, and revising some of the content on the Aaron Peskin Wikipedia page.

There are a few things on the page I would like to touch up, but the most noticeable error is in the first paragraph under the 'Controversies' section. The references used lead either to dead webpages, or to a page with dead links.

Can this be removed due to the lack of a verifiable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.234.124 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed that section. Very poorly sourced to begin with, and one of the refs (to the same site) was dead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Another possible sock?

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I noticed this and wondered if this recent vandal was really related to another user that was recently blocked (not by you I guess - I think User:Monty845 & User:Acroterion did the actual blocking)? Just wondering... Guy1890 (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your thoughts regarding a teahouse edit

This seems toxic, but I have not looked at the overall situation enough to be able to tell if there is a "guilty" party. You have interacted with this editor before; would you be willing to have a look and recommend action, if any? Kind thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a bit of a look, enough to know that I don't want to get involved. Both editors have a history, albeit for different reasons. If I understand properly, they may have come to some sort of truce. Regardless, I don't think it would be helpful for me to stick my nose into it. I don't know anything about the Brandon editor and didn't look beyond his remark, although frankly, if someone accuses someone else of misconduct (Lips), they should state the editor's name. It's patently silly not to.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

CloudOver

Hi, recently, you have deleted page, which I created about CloudOver IaaS. What shall I add to that page, to make it notable? Together, with parent project it exists since 2009 (former CC1 Cloud). It was cited in Linux Magazine, Computer Science and many conferences. Similar projects, like OpenNebula or OpenStack exist in Wikipedia Regards, Maciej — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnabozny (talk • contribs) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The article explains how the system works but doesn't say anything about its importance. If you wish, I can WP:USERFY it for you so you can work on it and then submit it through WP:AFC for feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will be gratefull for this. As I understand, after improvements, it will be possible to put it back, when it is fine? Maciek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnabozny (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's now at User:Mnabozny/CloudOver. When you have finished working on it, click the button at the top "Submit your draft for review". You have a large hurdle to get over because the software was developed by you, which is clearly a conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

More socks?

I think this is another sock of these ones? They are driving me crazy on the dog articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

9/11 Wiki

Hi, I wish that you undo your speedy deletion and let the community decide on the matter. This article is documenting part of Wikipedia history. This Wiki used to be linked from Wikipedia's front page as any of the sisters' projects. I ask that you have a look at Brian C. Keegan, High Tempo Knowledge Collaboration in Wikipedia’s Coverage of Breaking News Events, Northwestern university, 2012, pp.80-90. [27] I understand that few sources are available, but at least the decision should be made through a deletion discussion processes. Best regards.--Kimdime (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kimdime: I'm willing to WP:USERFY it if you wish so you can work on it but not out-and-out restore it. However, if another administrator thinks I'm wrong, they can restore it on their own or chime in and ask me to restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. After the content is transferred in my user space, which process would I have to follow in order to publish it ?--Kimdime (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There would be a button at the top of the page for you to submit it for review (see WP:AFC). Once you were done working on it and you thought it worthy of being an article, you would click on that button. Given that you're an experienced editor, you could also ask other editors directly what they think of the article. If you got some support for your belief, you could then just republish it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm indeed an experienced user (and a sysop)... on my home Wiki. Here I must say that I'm quite clueless and not really acquainted with the local habits. One of the issue I have with your proposal (beside the fact that WP:AFC seems to take quite a lot of time according to the stats I just saw) is that I'm afraid that my efforts will be lost if my improved version is rejected. As a non-native speaker, even writing few sentences is costly. I understand that the article doesn't obviously respect the inclusion criteria but on the other hand I have a source that is quite interesting and I really feel that this is a chapter of Wikipedia history that is worth mentioning. Hence my proposal, you restore it and immediately request a deletion. That would allow a panel of Wikipedians to make a collective decision. I really believe (no offense intended) that the decision to delete this content should be made by more than one user. Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For a "non-native speaker", you speak remarkably well, better than some native speakers I know.. I understand the point you're making, and I'll consider it. But before I make a decision, I'm going to ask another administrator to take a look at the article and see what he thinks. He thinks he's smarter than I am and hopefully will express his opinion. Besides, both of us have a weakness for France. So, un peu de patience: Drmies? --Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bbb, from one non-native speaker to the next, I agree with the deletion decision. Dissertations etc. notwithstanding, there is no reasonable claim of importance and no reliable secondary sourcing to back up any such claims. Besides, the dissertation isn't published (as far as I can tell), so whatever it has to say isn't automatically considered reliable and cannot be thought to add considerably to notability. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All right, let's forget about it then.--Kimdime (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

jeunesse global deletion

I started an new article (there is a link to a now blank page)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeunesse_Global&action=edit&redlink=1 That you deleted without any discussion. I made detailed notes in the talk page as requested but you did not appear to read these or at least comment on them.

Can you explain why? Rovastar (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence of it passing an A7 in the article. If you wish, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it for you so you can submit it to other editors more experienced than you for feedback after you work on it some more.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The article wasn't finished.

I'll make a complete article.Rovastar (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: User:Rovastar/Jeunesse Global.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

question

can you explain why you deleted as housekeeping/uncontroversial an SSP request I started given that others still had unanswered questions over the actions of the user and that the two other editors named are clearly the same person. Gnangarra 08:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: You first accused a long-standing editor, Cavaronne, with over 49,000 contributions and no block log, of being a sock master. Then you retreated from that, but you still are accusing another editor, MO7838, created in 2012, no blocks, and over 11,000 edits, of being a sock master. Yet, nowhere other than your saying it's so ("duck test") did I see any evidence (diffs) that MO7838 and Total25 are the same person. Worse, with essentially no evidence, you requested a CU. Finally, you acknowledge there is no evidence of disruptive conduct by MO7838 and Total25, a requirement to block someone for sock puppetry. I rarely delete an SPI, but in this instance you tarnished Cavarrone by your filing the report, although I don't doubt your good faith, and if the case were to proceed, I'd have to move it to a new master, thereby tarnishing that user's reputation when, as it stood, the only other alternative to deletion was to simply decline the report. Deletion seemed to be the better course of action given the circumstances. However, I'm open to restoring it if you can persuade me that I should.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is extraordinary thin evidence to start an SPI over--the whole thing is an error of judgment. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Traderagency

You blocked the first, he's created the second. I was AGF that he wasn't here to promo his org, but it seems he is. You could consider blocking dillion too.

• Traderagency (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DillonKreider (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: My apologies, Anna, I should have talked to you first, but although I realized you were aware of Traderagency, I didn't realize you were also aware of the other account until mid-blocks. Anyway, the behavior by the fellow was all too much for me. In any event, it looks like you're okay with it, so I don't feel as bad.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No apologies necessary at all, of course. :) I actually started the discussion about his problematic username. That is why he created the second account. Nonetheless, he is here pushing for an article about his firm(s). So, regardless of the block reason, he still needs to convince us that he will make edits unrelated to his company. Fair enough? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. And if you determine based on subsequent events that he should be unblocked, that's fine, although he shouldn't use the first account name, obviously.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've unblocked him in good faith because he says he's a "financial writer and can provide tons of educational articles" and I trust he will no longer try to push for anything that promotes is own org. I'll keep an eye on things. If you have any objections or concerns, I'll follow your guidance. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, although I am dubious about things other than just promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a recent unblock request you received Comment

FYI, I opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shookallen88. Because if that's not a WP:DUCK, I don't know what is. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 05:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at an AfD

Following this case, is it worth relisting the article? As most of the 'keep' !votes came from the puppets. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears that JzG took into account the suspiciosness of many of the keep votes, but you can certainly ask him what he thinks. As a matter of possible interest, I just closed the SPI after blocking everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, Thanks for that. Yes he did of course ('Guy' got me there a moment!). No worries, just don't think I've seen that situation yet, so was unsure as to the policy of reopening AfDs or requesting DRV in sock cases. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely worth relisting, and I think we could possibly take the rare step of semi-protecting the AfD or imposing a minimum account age and edit criterion in closing. It's not an obvious case for nuking, but it is undoubtedly marginal. You could also ask User:DGG for an opinion, I know of nobody with sounder instincts on notability. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm out of my depth for blogs, and for football in the UK, much less the combination, but just going by general rules for valid afd discussions:, The arguments for keeping were not good: " fact that Bantams Banter broadcast with Allan Davies for ITV is certainly notable The fact that the Bantams Banter presenters have been on TV on BBC Football Focus and Match of the Day certainly makes them notable -" is derived notability--not everyone who performs in a notable continuing series of shows is notable. And "has achieved more notability than the podcasts listed below which have pages:" is a classic non-argument.GS's skepticism about the sources seems warranted. And accusing the nom of bias always raises suspicion. . The only possible basis for notability is the 2013 Football Blogging Award--and I do not know its significance. I don't think we'd need to protect--the case for notability is very weak. I think DRV would say relist in any case regardless of the sockpuppettry. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you are right. I probably was too fair to them. I would have !voted delete, but did not want my personal bias against puffery to take precedence over the debate - seems I leaned too far the other way. Guy (Help!) 06:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evading IP sock from User:Itaykaufman12

When you get a chance, take a look at WP:AN#hi their wikipedians, if you would. You blocked the master account as CU-verified abuse of multiple accounts. BMK (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the IP was blocked in my absence. I don't know who the IP belongs to, but just to be clear, Morbenmoshe and Itaykaufman12 are two separate masters. There's no technical evidence that connects them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Bbb23,

I'm wondering if you can have a look at this please? You will see that the comment above mine is encouraging the user to sock by editing logged out. I've told them how to appeal their unblock request, however I'm wondering if advice from a checkuser may discourage them from editing logged out?--5 albert square (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I removed the IP's "advice" from the Talk page and added a warning to your advice. Hopefully, that should do it, but in my view you can carry through with my warning if needed; doesn't have to be me. I put the page on my watchlist, but I still might miss it in the morass that passes for a watchlist. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did consider removing the IP's "advice" too but wasn't sure if that would count as altering someone's talk page comment :) --5 albert square (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yung Trace

Hi BBB, you deleted that article in Feb as G5 (banned user). It is back in some form as Yung Trace (rapper). I don't know if it is the same as the deleted version, or if it is a genuine attempt by another user (albeit brand new today) to make an article. It asserts enough to pass A7, though all sources are wikis. I figure, you got the tools, so dig further as you please. Thanks, Crow^Caw 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crow: The account is a sock of a well-known sockmaster. I've deleted the article and blocked the account. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Proxies

Hi Bbb23. Do you check for open proxies? If you check the recent history of this user page you'll see various IP's and one registered user defacing it (all blocked now). The registered user claims to be using a proxy. [28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And one more. Charming. Blocked per WP:DUCK. Not sure if I should open an SPI so as to keep track of this person. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm not the best checkuser for identifying open proxies, but from what I can tell, Blindedhall is not using an open proxy per se. Instead, he's obtaining an IP address that anybody can obtain as long as they can pay for it. That IP address then permits him to hide his true location. Saying he is using seven is a bit of bravura on his part. I wouldn't bother opening an SPI just to block IP addresses that you can block easily on your own. If at some point you think he's created another named account, that would be a different matter, but I saw no sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked this account as a sock a couple hours ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. A quick check indicates that this is somewhat complicated. If it were straightforward, I'd act without an SPI, but now I'd prefer if you open an SPI with Blindedhall as the master and the other two named accounts as the puppets (I didn't notice Elliot before now because I didn't click on the link and assumed it was another IP when you said "one more"). I'd also throw in all the IPs and request a CU. Although we can't disclose any relationship between a particular IP and a named account, it will nonetheless give a fuller picture. Obviously, you should also present the evidence you have that the accounts are connected.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blindedhall#17_June_2015 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good. Not sure why you didn't request a CU, but no matter. I'll look at when I have time (definitely not tonight).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Brain is kind of fried. I blocked "Lila", Citation bot and a whack of these in the last few hours. Crazy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to bed, or at least go off-wiki. Not a good idea to overdo as an editor and even worse as an administrator. Take it from an overdoer.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 again

I just want to let you know that Synthwave.94 has restarted with his edit warrings at Baltimora article.--Harout72 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bishal Khan and Bazaan are possibly the same

I'll be logging off due to thunderstorms and not sure that I got sufficient evidence into the Bishal case for comparisons. Too many open tabs and not enough time. I can see that they look to be the same but need other eyes on it. Lots of crossover. If the storms let up, I'll try to check in later. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Case at AN3 which you dealt with in the past

Hello Bbb23. When making the list of past cases for User:Getoverpops I noticed you were the closer of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection). This was an admitted IP of User:Getoverpops who has now been reported again at WP:AN3#User:Getoverpops reported by User:Scoobydunk (Result:). While wracking my brain to think of any admin who had ever reviewed the Getoverpops situation before, and might consider commenting again, you were the only one whose name occurred to me, so thanks for letting me interrupt your talk page for a moment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

IP 82.11.33.86

Hello. I noticed that you blocked the IP for violating ARBPIA, but as far as I can see the IP has never been issued a discretionary sanctions notice (which I was under the impression they must have been; correct me if I'm wrong, though), for any area where discretionary sanctions apply, and couldn't possibly know that there was a 1RR limit. The reason I'm looking at it is that I, as I have written at WP:ANI, see an unsavoury pattern of harassment and hounding against the IP from a group of registered users active on articles relating to Pakistan, with user warnings that don't apply, etc. I don't share the views of either of the two sides, but the way the IP has been treated by registered users disgusts me. Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A DS alert is not necessary for a 1RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just posted a comment on MAR4D's talk page regarding a level-4-warning for genre warring that they had posted on the IP's talk page, in spite of the IP never having made any edits to genres on any article. When asked which edits the warning was issued for MAR4D replied that he had accidentally clicked on {{uw-genre4}} instead of {{uw-3RR}} in Twinkle. The problem with that answer is that they're not even on the same tab in Twinkle, so such an accident shouldn't be humanly possible. But maybe I'm getting too personally involved sometimes. Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hello, Bbb23. I would like to request that you delete User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:ImprovingWiki, the user pages of the two sock puppet accounts of mine that you blocked on December 22, 2014, exactly six months ago. My reasons for wanting these pages deleted are the reasons you probably expect. Primarily, I see them as an unwelcome reminder of the past. Beyond that, it is my belief that there is no reason why Wikipedia needs to retain those pages. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator contains as much record of my past misbehavior as Wikipedia actually needs. I could have nominated these pages for deletion myself, but I have refrained from doing that, as it might be interpreted as a form of disruption. I quite understand if you do not wish to agree to this request, but I would hope that you at least consider it. If you do not choose to delete the pages now, then could you indicate at what date in the future it is likely that they might be deleted? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I've never had a request like this before, so I'll have to give it some thought. In the meantime, how are they an "unwelcome reminder"? I mean, unless someone knew of them, why would they even look at them?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If stalker input is acceptable - I think I'd honor the request, personally. Details are already well documented and the pages themselves don't better the encyclopedia in any way. It doesn't hurt anything, that I can see, to delete them and we are a 'pedia of second chances (and third, and fourth, and fifth - but you're out by the sixth. Until you come back for the seventh).--v/r - TP 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keeping the pages in effect implies that I am likely to continue socking and that other editors need the maximum amount of evidence to detect this activity. Respectfully, I don't believe that this is true. I have engaged in zero socking since late 2014, and I've no intention of doing any in future, so I don't see why Wikipedia needs to keep those user pages, as some kind of eternal badge of shame. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Between you and me, I think you're making the wrong argument here. Make this about the encyclopedia. The pages serve no purpose. They'll only be a distraction. They circumvent the 'pedia's de facto policy on second chances.--v/r - TP 22:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to convey what the pages mean to me on a personal level. Of course it is also true that they actually serve no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For helping User:Tigerboy1966 (who is the heart and soul of WikiProject horse racing) with that harassing IP and sockpuppet, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Thanks, Montanabw, we already have baby carrots for our pony. Now all I have to do is figure out whether I should house him in the existing barn, a new barn just for him, or the spare ponyroom.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to rent out a ponyoroom, but it will cost you. And housekeeping is extra.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Well, this "pony room" would easily fit a whole stable! Luckily, ponies are easy keepers and prone to getting fat by just looking at grass, so if you have a small grassy paddock, that would do! Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

USS Scorpion (SSN-589)

Hello Bbb23, It looks as if our block evading person (albeit using different persona) is back again on the above article, following your recent block. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for three months and backed out the changes made by the IP. The edits are not block evasion as Brandywine589 is no longer blocked. However, it seems more than likely that it is the user editing without logging in to avoid scrutiny, which is also prohibited by policy. Although it would have been entirely reasonable, I did not reblock Brandywine589. However, please let me know if there is more disruption to the article or anywhere else by the user or the IPs. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Will keep a watch on the article. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you two clowns have deleted a edit that added a published book on the subject. That boot contains an endorsement signed by 96 family members of the lost crew. You two maintain false information in the article without references or citations. The edit was done by an old torpedo chief who served with some of the lost crew. It was a test to show that Bbb23 has an agenda to promote false information on the subject as well as David J. Johnson. It is curious to note that you two are deleting anything in the article that is based on fact.

Please explain why you would delete the edit that added simple reference to the book authored by Bruce Rule and endorsed by 96 family members of the lost crew.....can you do that?? Can you act responsibly or are you two just promoting sensational publications for your own cause?? Care to identify yourselves and your cause to abuse this article???? Brandywine589 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is this Bbb23 and why is he supporting false information in this article. Suggest Bbb23 provide the reference for the statement that Hamilton says the recording is 'garbled'. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest this. The recording is in the public domain and has never been considered 'garbled'. No reference is provided. Why is this false, unverifiable information in this article and why does Bbb23 keep up his editorial war to protect false information??? Deleting mention of a published book?? What is Bbb23's hidden agenda? Does he work for a publisher of the other books listed? Very strange behaviour of a so called editor in this matter. Perhaps Wiki should investigate Bbb23 and his desire to defame the loss of 99 men? OldGoat589 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Brightify

Hi Bbb, I asked a question on that last Maelbros report--trying to see if you had any more information to dispense that would make it easier to distinguish between Brightify and Maelbros. Onto a related subject, I just noticed Lynnstol. Reminded me of Popestol and Wynstol, which I happened to see today. Might be a coincidence, but I thought I'd bring them to your attention in case you wanted to keep an eye on them. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Frankly, I don't know that much about the behavioral differences between the two masters. Although I've much more experience with Maelbros (up until now, none with Brightify), even that experience has been more on the technical than the behavioral end. In that vein, it was the technical differences between Wynstol and the recent Maelbros puppets that disturbed me. As for Lynnstol, that's a good catch. I don't suppose I could interest you in filing a report at Brightify if you think that Lynnstol and Brightify are a match behaviorally. It would also give me a good excuse to comment on Wynstol at the Brightify SPI as I only commented at the Maelbros SPI. Nothing compels you to file, of course, particularly if you don't think it is a match, but if you open a new investigation, please let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Filing would be premature, but I'll try to keep an eye on them. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap, I didn't think to compare the user pages... Good catch! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambedkar

About this: Why do you call it daft? Ambedkar opposed Hinduism and Hindu Gods all his life and Buddhism which he embraced is an irreligious religion which doesn't talk about the existence or not of God. So how is he not an atheist? -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and "daft" was too strong a word (it's a controversial article and it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction), but it's not clear to me that just because someone is a Buddhist means they are also an atheist. Do you have any sources that support him being considered an atheist. I suggest you go to the Talk page of the article and see what other editors have to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, Thanks for looking for India related topics, but I would say that your recent revert on Ambedkar regarding category "Indian atheist" was little bit harsh on relatively new user. You can read 11th para from this this Times of India article which lists "Indian atheists" which includes name of Ambedkar on first place. Moreover we can call Christians, Muslims, Hindus as "Theists" or "Believers" as they believe in God same way we can call Buddhists and Jains as "Atheists" or "Non-Believers" because they don't believe in God. Atheist Buddhism BBC. Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 17:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

LilyLiam31 and SashaMoe1972--FYI

Greetings. While you were blocking these two accounts (thank you), I was creating an SPI linking these accounts with at least a couple of older accounts. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma 1984. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 00:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Finngall: Thanks for the heads up and for creating the SPI. I've taken "control" of the CU but probably won't actually have results until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange removal?

Maybe it's just me, but do you find it strange that after all the additions that User Liquid foundation has done he now complains about someone removing more info from the Federer–Nadal rivalry... and the user that just removed the info User:Guineveredawn hasn't made an edit in over 6 years? And the only edits the user had ever made prior were on Japanese animation? Suddenly after 6 years this editor make one edit and it's this particular tennis article. What was removed is already in the article body pretty much word for word so I guess it didn't need to be in the lead also... but still...it could be just coincidence but it made my spidey-sense tingle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's very odd. I don't get it, either, but if you don't think the removal is disruptive and the user doesn't continue, I suppose the easiest thing (I'm kinda tired right now) is to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm letting it go... it's just odd. Maybe this new editor in the situation "Chu pikachu" (a Pokemon Japanese animated character) isn't all he seems either? These are my own musings and probably all wrong but it sure makes me keep my eyes open on this situation. Get some shut-eye and thanks for listening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request

On 21 June 2015 you gave User:Concord hioz a 48 hour block for edit-warring. In his response he did not accept the reasons for your block and came right back from that block to continue to edit war on the same article. Diff #1, Diff #2 and his edit summaries and talk page comments show that he does not accept the outcome of the RfC rejecting his position. Given that he has returned from his block to the same behaviour, can I ask you to review the situation and take whatever steps you determine are necessary. I have indicated on the article talk page that I would ask for your review of the situation as an uninvolved admin. Thank you for considering this request. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RevDel query

Hi,

Do you know if there's any kind of time limit on RevDel requests?

I've been asked to revdel something that is nearly 9 years old. The user put their name on their userpage, they decided 9 years ago to take it off their user page but now they also want it rev del'd? Do you know if that is possible?--5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I don't believe there's any policy about the age. It helps if there are no intervening edits during the time as otherwise you end up having to hide quite a few legitimate changes. It's a bit unusual to hide something at the request of the user when the user themself made the edit, but I suppose there's nothing that prohibits it. I'm not an expert in this area, so if you think you need more educated guidance, you could ask an admin with OS permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on deletion

Hello Bbb23,

What opinion have you regarding this article: Necropenis? I believe it's a hoax, or doesn't have the notability to justify an article. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: Hoax. Author blocked as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing... In closing the AfD (with an automated program, admittedly), I recreated the talk page. Mind deleting it please? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Theyuusuf143

I would like for you to check this out since you're the admin that helped me solve this issue before. Many thanks! AcidSnow (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: Please list the suspected puppets in the proper way before your comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologize!! AcidSnow (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I did it. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

May you please show me what the sock wrote here? I don't remember them acknowledge socking and only made more attacks. May you confirm this? AcidSnow (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Their edit has been suppressed; I can't look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I remember what they wrote, they didn't acknowledge socking and instead linked to some forum and started accusing me of stuff. Anyways, I am sorry if I am pushing you but do you please mind returning to the Sockpuppet investigation? I am completely sickened and saddened by this users harassment against me. I simply want this to finally end. AcidSnow (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

089baby SPI

I tried to write this in the investigation page and wound up with an editing conflict with as you were archiving it. In any case, did CU turn up any possible sleepers? There are a fair number of the other editors that I have nagging suspicion might be 089baby socks as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with sleepers when the account you're checking doesn't pan out technically.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolving doubts about my veracity

Have recently been on the talk page of RedRose64 regarding a matter unrelated to this, I notice you have suspicions about me, naturally. I should like to allay them, for mutual benefit.

This is my only ever user, it's not a diversion for previous edits (I think there is a name for people like this, however I am unfortunately unable to re-collect it), however, I had been editing Wikipedia for a while previously without an account, under various i.p. addresses (I shall not disclose them, primarily for reasons of privacy, but also as there are very many) which might account for the seeming experience you observe in my edits. It may also be partly because I tend to copy and paste necessary code from pages where something similar to my aim exists already and editing the text where appropriate.

Unfortunately, I am unable to explain why my user-page is unusual as I do not see it as such. I think I can explain if you want if you tell me what set the alarm-bells ringing.

Briefly, regarding your just blocking of me, I am reformed and shall never repeat offend. I have apologised to the offended user and would like to apologise to you for any disruption or inconvenience.

Thank you for you time and kind consideration.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Smith

(also asking others who could help)

Can you take a look at Samantha Smith? It's a featured article but a fresh pair of eyes is always good. I'm concerned that with the 30th anniversary of her death in August, there'll be increased articles in the press and we'll have "Saint Samantha" vs "Soviet stooge" edit wars. Paul Austin (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Followup on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Augenblink

Yesterday you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Augenblink. It originally had a request for checkuser, but looking at the SPI it does not look like one was run on the accounts. I would like to request one. The sock, Augenblinkauch, has stated on their talk page that they have already created a new account and is just waiting for the account to be autoconfirmed so they can continue to edit war on the semi-protected article. -- GB fan 14:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: It's your fault I didn't run a CU as you had already blocked the sock. :-) I'm going to have breakfast and then I'll deal with it. It's nice of socks to give us a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is at least one account, User:Augenblinkdrei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They just thanked me for revoking their talk page access. -- GB fan 14:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: There five new sock accounts created. NeilN blocked one, and I blocked the other four. I took some technical measures to hopefully reduce the likelihood of future ones, but it's generally impossible to stop, although sometimes an edit filter can be useful. There's only one thing left to do before tagging. The following much older account is  Confirmed: Lu3ke (talk · contribs · count). My review of their edits and those of the current socks is that there's a reasonably strong behavioral connection, but before deciding that Lu3ke is the master (and tagging accordingly), I'd like your input. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look. -- GB fan 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

After looking, behaviorally, I think Lu3ke and Augenblink are the same person. -- GB fan 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some clean-up work to do, both with tagging and the SPI itself (has to be moved to the new master). I'll try to get to that soon, but I have a dental appointment (unfortunately) later this morning, and I'm not even dressed yet. Wikipedia is a taskmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact

There's a battleship named after you: BB-23 -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Gulf War article sanctions

Hi, i noticed that you marked the Gulf War article as WP:ARBPIA on June 21 [29]. Considering the example of Syrian Civil War sanctions decision, how is Gulf War related to ARBPIA? - it is clearly not a part of Arab-Israeli conflict. Strangely, in parallel to your tagging, the article was protected by user:EdJohnston based on ARBPIA, and an IP was [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:82.11.33.86_reported_by_User:Faizan_.28Result:_Blocked.29 sanctioned] by ARBPIA sanctions, even though he was edit-warring in relation to Pakistan, which is certainly related with ARBIP (Pakistan-India sanctions) rather than ARBPIA. Can you explain?GreyShark (dibra) 10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my recollection, my "designation" of the article as subject to ARBPIA was based in part on the fact that two administrators had been involved in placing a 1RR editnotice on the article but had not put a notice on the Talk page. Prompted in part by the edit war with the IP, who I believe claimed they hadn't seen the edit notice when violating 1RR, I decided to make the Talk page consistent with the article itself. I also looked at the article and saw sufficient references to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to justify the broad construction of the article as subject to those sanctions. Again, my recollection is that EdJohnston agreed that the article was subject to ARBPIA at WP:AE when the IP appealed the sanction based on ignorance or lack of notice or whatever you want to label it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello GreyShark. As the article explains, Iraq fired missiles at Israel during the Gulf War. Iraq is an Arab country. Hence, Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is too simplistic to say that just because Iraq launched some rockets to Israel (in addition to much more rockets into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), it is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict; those Iraqi rockets, though notable, killed 1 person in Israel - certainly not WP:DUE compared with the whole war, which killed tens of thousands; plus Israel maintained neutrality. We had the same issue with the Syrian Civil War, when somebody tagged it ARBPIA, because of some tensions on Golan Heights - but the community decided it has nothing to do directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Gulf War is as well - not directly related to the Arab Israeli or Israeli Palestinian issues. This is greatly misleading to tag Gulf War under WP:ARBPIA. I think there is also a problem with several other articles, where topics, completely unrelated to ARBPIA are somehow falling into the category.GreyShark (dibra) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the page was first marked as WP:ARBPIA by user:PhilKnight in November 2010; however looking at the edit-history of the page i cannot identify any edit-warring related to the ARBPIA topic. In fact - the edit-warring (which indeed takes place) looks like vandalism or directly related to the Gulf War itself. Perhaps PhilKnight can explain why he tagged the page as ARBPIA before i take this issue to the boards.GreyShark (dibra) 13:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, Syrian Civil War is not marked ARBPIA because there is no evidence of any official Israeli participation. Iraq certainly announced they were fighting Israel, and shooting missiles is not a friendly act. That war is even mentioned in Arab-Israeli conflict, in the 'Iraq' section. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with general sanctions enforcement

As you're familiar with general sanctions enforcement, I thought I might ask you if you could help enforce WP:GS/UKU by reviewing the edits of Speccy4Eyes. RGloucester — ☎ 18:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I'm familiar with enforcing community sanctions, but not those community sanctions. Never even heard of them. If you think that Speccy4Eyes violated the sanctions (I can see they've been notified), I would take it to WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps comparing them with those of Michael Glass, from whom I derived my inspiration and whose technique I was emulating, if you choose to do so. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Speccy4Eyes: I'm afraid I don't understand your point or how it's relevant to RGloucester's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if I've broken any rules, then Michael Glass probably has too. I have done nothing novel, I have just followed his examples of how to edit football and rugby player articles by adding pertinent references. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Dirty_tricks_-_framing_attempt.. The heavy hand was a bit rude and seems so unnecessary, BBB. Your reason given for shutting down the discussion? Just the statement, "This topic never belonged here in the first instance." - with nothing to support it but an appeal to authority. Unfortunate. The instructions assume a username to complain about, but there wasn't one. Do you dispute that because of that I needed guidance which I sought in what as far as I could tell was the right place? What was/is the right place, and how would I have known that without asking, given that the instructions assume a username to complain about, but there wasn't one? Elvey^(t•c) 00:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious. Just like Vanjagenije, I was having trouble following precisely what you were saying. Did you mean that there is an IP whom you suspect of socking but you don't know who the master is, or did you mean that there are two IPs that you suspect are socks of each other?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you answer a question with a question? I came here to ask you a question. Found an answer elsewhere, eventually. I edited a word in my post to make it clearer what I was saying. And it's obvious if you look at the edit history of the article for their and my recent edits.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sebastien de la Cruz

I see you just deleted Sebastien de la Cruz per WP:A7. Would you mind restoring it to my userspace — is that how it's done? I think the guy is clearly notable and there are plenty of major sources, but the article is probably not worth saving in its present form so I may get around to recreating it with proper format, sourcing, etc. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: Normally I wouldn't have a problem doing that, but in this instance I'm reluctant to even put it in as a draft in userspace. The article was so non-neutrally written it was part promotional of the subject and part attacking of people other than the subject (without verifiable sources). You shouldn't have a problem recreating it, and I'm sure you'll do a much better job.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz

Bbb23, could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz and check if everything there's been formatted correctly? It was opened over 2 weeks ago, but no clerks have looked commented yet. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat: Nothing wrong with it. We have a list we use, and it's on that list. There are others that have been opened quite some time as well that no clerk has reviewed yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just wanted ton l check if it was working/set-up correctly. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hickey Ranch

Worth keeping? --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you once again for your assistance these past few years! AcidSnow (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: I blocked the last IP for block evasion, which makes your revert permissible, but the same can't necessarily be said for all your reverts. Be careful. Better to bring problems to noticeboards than to risk a block for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. The ones that are from the other IPs are harassment and they seem to fall under vandalism which is why I continued to revert. I requested the help of admins directly instead of going to a noticeboard to speed the process up since one IP (the one from today) reverted me 22 times on random articles just today. I nonetheless thank you for your guidance. AcidSnow (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User removing active block notice

Hi Bbb23, were you aware that M.srihari has removed his block notice from his talk page? My understanding is that this is not allowed. If I'm wrong then fair enough but otherwise as the blocking admin, I thought you ought to know. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: It's okay. It isn't permitted to remove a decline while still blocked, but a blocked user can remove the block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well you learn something every day. Thanks. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:ArmyLine

I took pretty aggressive action, blocked the ip, semi protected and rev del'ed under beans, and thought I would say so you can review and modify if you think it needs it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I saw some of the events, up through my revert of the IP, but then went for a nice walk so I missed the rest. I don't have a problem with any of it, but I do think the IP should get some credit for the funny edit summary when they reverted me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Serial vandal

Hello. I have encountered a serial vandal that I'm not familiar with, an editor who inserts text that at first glance seems legitimate, with sources and all, but when read carefully is pure nonsense, and clear vandalism ([30], [31], [32]). I have so far found 92.41.116.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Bichbarbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but my gut feeling is that they have been using many more IPs and throw-away accounts, and have been doing this for a long time. I first noticed the IP a couple of days ago, thanks to edits by a probably unrelated vandal (Corsschekcboogie, claiming to be David Beals), and then ran into Bichbarbar yesterday. The vandal isn't persistent, and doesn't edit war (as evindenced by Bichbarbar stopping immediately after being reverted and given a warning for joke edits), but the vandalism is very sneaky, and damaging (references to pigs on Education in the Arab World would probably be seen as highly offensive by many...), so maybe it's someone you're familiar with. Thomas.W ^talk 13:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You should be able to follow all my blocks and tags. If not, please let me know. There may be further disruption on the key articles. Feel free to contact me if there is. There's a bit of good cop/bad cop going on sometimes. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen all the blocks and tags. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 16:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

They're back as 188.29.219.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. I'll block if they continue disrupting elsewhere. Just let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

188.29.218.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was involved on Corporate law, and two IPs that close to each other being involved with named accounts linked by CU can't be a coincidence. Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you found some more. And there are probably many more since it has been going on since at least 19 December 2014. Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately for me as a checkuser I can't look that far back. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Uwe Humbug would be a good name for the master, since everything they've added is humbug. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for fixing my first-ever sockpuppet investigation. Ahh, formatting :) Safehaven86 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: Whenever you have a mixture of IPs and named accounts, the SPI should always be filed with the master being the oldest (by account creation date) named account. Then, you just list any IPs in the body. Thanks for filing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI case

I hate to ask to jump the queue, but is there any chance you could prioritise this case? The socks are proliferating. Happy for you to say no. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: I've never known anyone who's "happy" when told no. Is there any reason you can't take administrative action? WP:INVOLVED? It doesn't look like there are that many IPs that have been editing recently, based on the SPI. You can also request semi-protection (I see at least one article where that's already been done) if again you feel constrained from protecting an article yourself. As a checkuser I rarely get involved in behavioral cases, particularly with IPs. If you still think the SPI needs to be addressed sooner than "normal", why don't you ask one of the non-checkuser SPI clerks to help you out?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally happy to be told no in a case like this, when I'm asking a favour. I definitely feel INVOLVED, particularly after my input at ANI before the sockmaster was blocked. I'm not so familiar with SPI processes, and happy (always happy, I am!) to take this to a clerk. Thanks for the advice. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum

I'm not contesting you. I work there, and it is extremely difficult, and the number of editors who actually add substantial text, as opposed to reverting and editwarring over existing text, is exiguous. The point was not to indulge in a forum, but to give a reason why I thought a CU would be useful. I was permabanned by evidence which cited this one factual comment on tagteaming as a failure of WP:AGF. There I said what I had known, but patiently bore up with silently for months, because I don't know how to get technical evidence on these things, that on stylistic grounds, NoCal was using a sockpuppet, User:Canadian Monkey. One sockmaster constantly reverting me by using two handles. I said there:

(NoCal's) only function, as far as I have seen, is to push good editors over the top and get them subject to incremental sanctions

This is precisely what User:All Rows4 has being doing with User:Kingsindian this last week over piddling differences.

Almost immediately after the permaban, it emerged that in fact User:Canadian Monkey was NoCal. I made no protest at the Arbitration decision. I merely note that this is what goes on all the time, and a minimum of oversight is lacking, whereas, in the good old days, banning for editors on both sides was rapid, strict and efficacious. I'd gladly retire permanently if something like the old impatient austerity were reactivated.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I didn't take it as "contesting" me. The comments are just irrelevant. You're welcome to add comments to the SPI that consist of whatever evidence of similarities you have between the alleged puppet and the master (with diffs). Just skip the rhetoric. I'm not unsympathetic to your frustration. I've heard it from others. It just makes things harder to evaluate for the SPI team.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies of course. And I will extend them to All Rows4 for if proven wrong. I'm just of the old school - know nothing of these technical proofs, but I was minutely trained on stylistic thumbprints (never of course proofs) and meant to say that on this (non-wiki) criterion, I thought there were reasonable grounds to look into the matter. Sorry for the bother. Best Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I have been looking into the unblock request at User talk:Wjkxy. How compelling do you regard the CheckUser evidence as being? I have looked extensively at the editing history, and while most of the accounts do look to me like sockpuppets, Wjkxy doesn't. While most if not all of the accounts show some difficulty with English, Wjkxy sometimes seems to be really struggling with the language, in ways that the other accounts don't. On articles where both Wjkxy and one or more of the other sockpuppets have edited, sometimes the other socks keep on repeating the same sort of edits, while Wjkxy makes a different kind of edit. I know full well that a common practice of sockpuppeteers is to have their socks talking to one another, but in this case the conversations look genuine to me. If I had to judge this purely on behavioural evidence, I would be very strongly of the opinion that Wjkxy is not one of the sockpuppets, but without knowing exactly what the CheckUser evidence is, I can't be so sure. I asked the editor to say what their connection to the other accounts is, thinking they might admit to some connection that would explain the CU evidence, but the editor has denied any off-wiki connection other than probably living in the same city. Could the CU evidence be explained by such things as editing in the same city, using the same ISP, etc, or is it more specific than that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since posting the message above, I have noticed a couple of similarities between Wjkxy's editing and that of one of the other sockpuppets, so I am now more inclined to think Wjkxy is likely to be a sockpuppet. However, I am still very unsure, so I would still be grateful if you would give me some idea of how compelling the CU evidence is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson: Wjkxy is editing from the same area as the other socks. Precise locations are often hard to pinpoint. However, it doesn't look to me like he's editing from Pisa as he states, but I see no reason for him to lie about that, and he uses a lot of different IPs. Also, the locations in Italy of the different socks aren't always the same. Wjkxy is using one of the browsers the other socks use. However, the socks use many browsers, as does Wjkxy, and the one exact match with Wjkxy is a common browser. That's about all I can tell you technically unless you have specific questions. What edits did you find that gave you pause?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting that I understand now.

Hi, I'm just saying I understand now. I won't be doing any thing on here that much and I won't say I don't understand any more. I read all the links and I thank y'all for telling me the right things because if it wasn't for that block that I got. I would probably still be fussing and causing confusing.

But God did that for a reason and thats all that matter so Thanks from the bottom of my heart and it was a pleasure working with the people that understood that I was coming from.

I think that you know who I am.

Guess the perfect admin.

I am not asking for yall to accept my apology but if y'all want to y'all can.

The reason why I said Summer Rae was returning because I saw her on T.D. and I thought she was returning for the first half of season 4 because I saw her that's why and Summer back on Total Divas and I was surprise because I thought she was main cast member for the first half when I saw her.

I will be editing and make changes the RIGHT WAY if I have to or need to. I would say that I'm so sorry and for y'all can unblock me but no don't do it because it is a LESSON LEARN.

True Real (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

about Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu

Hi, I was just editing Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu, an article that has been listed at AfD, towards rescuing it perhaps (I am not yet sure there is enough material to ensure it meets wp:GNG and I have not voted in the AfD. But I tend to think it is wikipedia-notable as it is an entire denomination, not just a local church, and there may be rules/precedents about notability of denominations). I am a semi-regular participant in Articles for Discussion. But I encounter your having just deleted the article for stated reason involving a blocked and/or banned editor. I hope you do not mean me; if so then your deletion was in error as I did not create the article and I am not banned from developing it. If the article was created by a banned editor, I don't think it necessarily has to be deleted. Actually by my few edits perhaps more than 1/2 of the article was not created by that editor. Could you please clarify? I'll watch here. P.S. I see that User:Davey2010 has promptly then closed the AfD because you deleted the article. --doncram 01:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC) , 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: No, of course I didn't mean you. If you want to recreate it, you can either do that on your own or if it helps you, I can WP:USERFY it for you, although it was pretty short.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And, I guess thanks but no thanks on your offer to userfy a copy to me, and I guess i will not recreate it. My reasoning, which I have to write down right away or I will lose it: Actually I was just then developing it by adapting aspects of Presbyterian Church of Vanuatu such as its categories and stating that it was among the reformed churches (as I anticipated it would be, like the other church is, but in fact it is not, so I would have soon reverted myself on that). I also had not yet verified that it was a separate denomination from Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia), and now do not think that it is. The one source it included was --i believe--a link to this PRC (Australia) missionary work in Vanuatu page, which gives a 1990 date for something else but does not support what was the article's main assertion: that the church was created as a denomination in 1990 and that it has 5 local churches. It seems instead there are 3 local churches, which are part of PRC (Australia), although PRCV is a term that is used also (perhaps just as a courtesy to refer to the Vanuatu churches without indicating they form a separate denomination). Or maybe it is a separate denomination, but there is not enough material available to make that clear to me. So currently some mention of the topic is justified in the PRC (Australia) article and in the other Vanuatu church article (and I will add a bit to each), but I don't now see a need or justification for a separate article. Pinging Davey2010 for FYI notification purpose. Thanks. --doncram 01:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the proper way to do it?

Thanks for the semi protection on Federer–Nadal rivalry. For future reference, what is the proper step in these things, or is it sort of a case-by-case thing? User Wolbo had requested semi-protection this morning and it was denied for lack of different sockpuppet IP's (there were only two). So I assumed that meant to bring each of the two IP's to an administrators attention so as to block them individually instead of having a blanket protect at Federer–Nadal rivalry. Instead you (and admin Jenks24) decide to override the original denial for semi-protect. I'm glad of the outcome but I have to admit to being confused at the proper way I should have brought it to someone's attention. I don't like stepping on toes and just want to get it right. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I think you did it the right way. You tried for semi, and when it was denied, you filed at SPI. I decided semi was better and easier. Admins don't always agree, and I see things from a slightly different slant being a checkuser and former SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just making sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Need your assistance for a move

Can you move Semko Libadi to Mustafa Hijri and delete current Mustafa Hijri article? An editor requested help on help desk. Since only Administrators can do the move, I am asking you to make the move. Thank you. Supdiop (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't get involved in requested moves. Perhaps they'll get more help from an admin on the Help desk. If not, they can try WP:RM.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Supdiop (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Einar Aasen Skogsholm

You quickly deleted a new page that I was starting to work on. I'm confused, since it's a work in progress. How does it hurt anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikingExplorer (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to WP:USERFY it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this person is notable according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Many scientists, researchers, .. are notably influential in the world of ideas Authors, ... architects, and other creative professionals

Examples of Notability and impact, this person:

1. wrote a book about electric machines
2. He was an inventor (has 6 - 12 patents). These were used in products sold by GE Speed Variator.
3. He was the chief engineer for the GE Dash 8s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_8_Series)
4. He was the chief engineer for a company in Pittsburgh that was renovating and automating old steel mills

VikingExplorer (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Probable block evasion

Hello. Zurich00swiss seems to be back as 151.29.154.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an Italian IP (Pisa) with the same targets as previous socks and similar edits. Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

from . --Silver Samurai 04:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Silver Samurai: Why did you leave this message on behalf of another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably Undertrialryryr is not the first account, Darthvaderskywalker2011 is the first account. This SPI case was moved from ZORDANLIGHTER to Undertrialryryr. Now move it from Undertrialryryr to Darthvaderskywalker2011.--112.79.37.149 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Concord hioz

Amazingly after you have now blocked this user twice for edit warring he has come right back from his week-long block for edit-warring and is immediately back to edit-warring on List of most-produced aircraft once again diff. Can you please review this situation and take whatever action is appropriate next. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You might even like to watch the videos of Jimmy Wales that have been posted.--Concord hioz (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So Sorry

This is in regards to the following sock puppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deadbeat_parent/Archive I have removed any reference to myself, such as links from my own Youtube account or my own personal page (www.okabenamedia.com) from the page in question that has been attacked. I have no idea who is doing this, but I am a public school teacher, and it is likely a disgruntled former student. This same individual (under different names) also attacked me on the Stone Arch Bridge (Minneapolis) page. At this point, I'm not sure what more I can do.

Ray.lowry Ray Lowry 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lucia Cole

Hey, you're the first admin that I saw that seems to be online so I thought I'd take this to you. There's an odd situation on our hands - there are accusations that Lucia Cole, who has an article here that claims she wrote songs with major artists and has interviews with magazines and an album up on itunes, doesn't even exist as the article says she does. I thought this was pretty far-fetched and I still don't want to jump to the conclusion that it's all a lie but I saw this and I'm becoming suspicious that she's at least not being 100% truthful about herself. I know celebrity gossip forums aren't exactly reliable sources, but you can verify yourself by listening to "her tracks" on itunes and then Jessica Simpson's - they really are the same, and she never has shown any indication of calling them covers, and I definitely think we shouldn't have anything here claiming she has copyright over things she doesn't. I don't think we should jump to deleting the page or anything (I wasn't the one that added the speedy deletion thing), but I think this is definitely something that should be looked into. poli 04:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be solved now, thank you for reading poli 07:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

The thing about the contested parts of this place, the emnity and bad blood seems to linger a lot and become a lot messier than even the real world can dish up. When a hunch is actually qualified as being valid, then the thanks are more than deserved when the cleanup actually occurs. I have a few ideas of a number of large edit area where the messes bigger than they are worth, but that is another very weird discussion some other time, not now. Thank you for your dealing with what was a lot larger than I actually expected, it is really appreciated. JarrahTree 08:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Iranian empire still socking

As User talk:176.123.89.221. I doubt he'll stop. Doug Weller (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. I doubt it'll do much good; MelanieN's semi-protection of one of the articles is probably more effective. I've also increased the block on the master to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Tried to thank you on my iPad using the mobile interface, but there didn't seem to be any way to save it. Not a lot we can do but keep a lookout. Now that it's moved to socking I think I can do my own IP blocks where it's blatantly obvious. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

There's a sock making disruptive edits on India-Pakistan articles (the type of edits which are sanctionable under WP:ARBIPA: [33]) and restoring the POV inserted by his previous socks. Could you kindly have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25 at your earliest convenience? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Wjkxy and User:Zurich00swiss

FYI - at User_talk:RichardOSmith#Zurich00swiss there is a discussion pertaining to both the above users' desire to get their blocks overturned. My involvement in all this has been in undoing Zurich00swiss and his socks' persistent vandalism, during which Wjkxy also got blocked to my surprise. I raise this with you (and user:JamesBWatson) with no further comment. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for your comments about this, which are now at User talk:Bbb23/Archive 31#Unblock on hold. When I read them, I was unsure what conclusion to come to, and left it for a while to think further about it. Unfortunately, "a while" gradually slipped into "indefinitely", and I did not come back and follow the matter up until I was notified by RichardOSmith that Zurich00swiss had used IP-editing to post a request for help concerning the block. The best evidence, as far I can tell from what you said above, was that the accounts edit from the same area, and that Wjkxy uses one of the same browsers as the other editor. As far as the area is concerned,there is no secret about the fact that they both have interest in editing on matters relating to the Pisa area, so it is unsurprising that they should both be in the same area. Using the same browser? Unless it's a really unusual browser, that proves nothing. Wjkxy claims to use Firefox and Chrome, both of which are used by many millions of people. You say that it is difficult to pinpoint locations exactly, and that a lot of different IP addresses are used. IP addresses are often very approximate unreliable guides as to location; for example, the IP address I am editing from geolocates to a city hundreds of miles from where I am, because that happens to be where my ISP has its offices. When I first looked into this, I made extensive comparisons of Wjkxy's editing history with that of Zurich00swiss. There is a very striking similarity of editing interests, not only in terms of what articles are edited, but in terms of what edits are made to those articles,details in listings of what airlines fly to what other airlines, and so on, with no or very little interest in editing prose content of articles, so clearly we have one or more enthusiasts for this aspect of airlines. Beyond that, though, I did not see any particular similarity, and indeed I found some striking contrasts. Unfortunately, I did not make a note at the time of what those contrasts were, and looking for them now among the vast numbers of edits of the numerous Zurich00swiss sockpuppets is like looking for a needle in a haystack, but here is one example: Wjkxy repeatedly stated that B&H airlines are not to be listed at Pisa International Airport: [34], [35], whereas a known Zurich00swiss sockpuppet listed it: [36]. There are occasions when Wjkxy and the sockpuppets talk to one another, such as [37], [38], [39], [40]. That is very weak evidence, since it is fairly common for one person's sockpuppets to talk to one another, but in this case the conversations look genuine to me, in a way that fake sockpuppet conversations usually don't. A much more important, consideration, I think, is that if Wjkxy is a sockpuppet, then it is difficult to see what the purpose of the sockpuppet could be. As far as I know, all the other sockpuppets were used for block-evasion, and each one started to edit after a previous account had been blocked. For example, Zurich00swiss was blocked at 19:27, 7 March 2015, and Ing.airport started editing at 14:35, 21 March. Ing.airport was blocked at 23:06, 23 March, and Pisaairport started editing at 16:56, 26 March. Pisaairport was blocked at 00:05, 3 April, and Newdestination started editing at 10:36, 10 May. Newdestination was blocked at 01:51, 24 May, and Newsdestination (note the extra "s") started editing at 11:22, 25 May. And so it goes on... Wjkxy, however, has been around since September 2014, long before Zurich00swiss came on the scene, and there was no block on the first account when the second was created. Nor do I see any other sort of abuse of multiple accounts including Wjkxy, such as taking part in the same conversation to give the spurious impression of differnet editors independently supporting the same point, or different accounts takeing part in the same edit-war, or anything else. All in all, I see far too little evidence of sockpuppetry to justify a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The gist of what you're saying is you'd like to unblock him. I'm not going to weigh in on your evaluation of the evidence because it would be an exhausting process, but I do understand your explanation, and I admit to having doubts myself as to whether the technical evidence and the obvious overlapping interests are sufficient in this instance. As far as I'm concerned in my role as blocking checkuser - and the policy that prohibits a non-checkuser administrator from overturning a CU block - you can go ahead. As always, I appreciate your deliberation and your consideration.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. In cases like this, it is impossible to be 100% certain, and so it's necessary to make a judgement as to what is most likely. Looking at the behavioural evidence, my judgement is that it is probably not sockpuppetry, and since from what you say the checkuser is not so strong as to overwhelm that behavioural evidence, I shall go ahead and unblock. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DoodyCalls draft

Hi Bbb23. Back on 27 January 2015 you deleted the article DoodyCalls under CSD A7. I was away then, and didn't get a chance to review the last state of the article. If you have a moment, could you undelete this into Draft:DoodyCalls? I'd like to do a review of the references and notability. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Life's a balance

One week it's servers crashing, the next it's a Christopher Cross soundtrack.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: You lost me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sailing day yesterday. It was glorious!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Giftroom_x

I note that you stopped Giftroom_x as a sock, Can you also rev del the talk page which contains abusive and defamatory comments about many respected editors. I have deleted it but it remains visible in history. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion question

Hi, recently you indef blocked Liquid foundation after a SPI. The case also included two IPs, one of which is now active again. Is it in line with policy to revert the edits of these IPs on the grounds of block evasion and, if so, should this evasion result in a block of the IP(s)? --Wolbo (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It'd help me if you linked to the IP you're having a problem with. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The SPI case lists two IPs: 184.59.10.138 and 63.92.230.249. The first one has started editing again. The edits are not disruptive as such but the user is banned. I'm looking for advice on this particular situation.--Wolbo (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I've blocked the IP for a week. In this instance, mainly because of the SPI itself, it would be acceptable for you to revert for block evasion (or sock puppetry, take your pick). However, I wouldn't get into a battle over it if the IP kept reverting back. I'd seek administrator help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance.--Wolbo (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I want to know where to stay the infobox for me to fill my pu with some information about me.-- G.X 23:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.X (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Thank you, Bbb, for closing the SPI on this: [41]. It's old number 99, inelegantly bringing this to noticeboards before creeping out to work early in the morning. Cheers! 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

An IPv6? Now that's new. The thing about IPv6 addresses is that when you undo their edits, there's almost no room in the edit summary to say anything. Very annoying. :-) Glad I could be of service and always glad to see you lurking about doing good wherever you go.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Re: Sorrowthemovie investigation. Softqube articles are still being created under various titles by sockpuppets - see:

• Lisacandy (talk · contribs)
• Maczen2 (talk · contribs)

-KH-1 (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you don't want to reopen the SPI? In this instance, it would be little work. If you've never done one before and you need assistance, I'd be happy to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent activities??

User:Swamiblue, known for their socking activities - recent edits are sending suspicious messages. Why would they blank out the contents of their old IP address? Does this constitute violation of a Wikipedia policy? Trying to erase blocking record while throwing an off-track edit message? See this edit here. In addition, why would they request that the IP address be unblocked: see this diff here? Possibly to continue socking activities?? Edit history also shows recurring edit warring patterns despite earlier warning. See this diff here. Continues to show their indifference to certain articles. Is a block warranted for these violations? Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the IP, that was just ignorance. As the administrator noted, the IP hadnn't been blocked in a long time. Moreover, FWIW, Swamiblue restored the contents of the Talk page, although blanking the Talk page in these circumstances wasn't a policy violation. As for the "edit warring", I have no comment. If you think he's edit warring, then you should warn him and, if appropriate, take him to WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Remember indeffed user Max Pumpkin, his multiple socks and their "joke" edits?

Well, he is, per WP:DUCK back as Doctor McMillain. Compare this edit that I linked to when MaxPumpkin & Co got blocked, which includes this little piece of nonsense text: and is sometimes offered a glass of wine if paid before the sell-by date. The buyer could have already paid for the groceries or services listed on the Stock Exchange. The Moon Illusion makes the Moon look larger when it is by the horizon. In the rental industry, an invoice must include a specific reference to the duration of the time being billed, with this edit by Doctor McMillain, which includes this piece of nonsense text and is sometimes offered a glass of wine if paid before the sell-by date. The buyer could have already paid for the groceries or services listed on the Stock Exchange. In the rental industry, an invoice must include a baked beans reference to the duration of the time being billed. One of Max Pumpkin's socks, Bichbarbar, also referred to baked beans in this edit on Education in the Arab World, an article that Doctor McMillain has also edited. Doctor McMillain has also made a couple of other nonsense edits, which as with all "Max Pumpkin" edits must be read very carefully to be spotted, and is in addition to that currently being a pain in the proverbial arse on Smalljim's talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked indefinitely as a not-very-innovative duck. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, folks, I was knee-deep in a very complicated CU (still not done but I took a break) when the blasted orange banner kept popping up everywhere. I'm very single-threaded, so I just eliminated the banner but ignored the posts - until now. Thomas.W, thanks for the report, and Favonian, I'm just gonna let you take care of these socks, in this and other places. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my modest best, but just before I throttled the late doctor's talk page access, this popped up. Just bluster, or do you think this sock farm is related to the Fan Man? Favonian (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

One of Max Pumpkin's IP socks claimed to be DB. Thomas.W ^talk 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

More than one account claimed to be Beals. In an earlier CU I cross-checked against Beals, and the accounts are  Unrelated. As for the latest, the following accounts are  Confirmed: Doctor McMillain (talk · contribs · count), Giftroom x (talk · contribs · count), and Naphtha Termix (talk · contribs · count). There were a couple of already-blocked accounts I identified as Pumpkin. I just tagged those.

There's one other account that's a technical match: Trubblemaker Todd. Although the username is troublesome, Ineed more input on the behavior generally. Can you guys look at it and tell me what you think? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's him alright. The mentioning of "wine" in this diff is the smoking gun. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you kindly.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I deliberately triggered McMillain a bit on their talk page, and got some bragging about Nelson Brothers in return. A now cleaned article created by Daniels Jerkins more than four months ago (as a pre-packaged bundle of nonsense text, hoax content and bogus references), a user account that was blocked by Jpgordon for abusing multiple accounts on 23 March 2015 (with talk page access revoked by Zzuuzz on 9 July 2015), but with no mention of who the other accounts involved were. So there might be far more socks involved, split over two or more accounts named as sock masters. Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The most important question is whether these accounts continue to edit now or if new accounts are created. If there are earlier accounts that are already blocked, it's not that big a deal. It would be great to have everything neat and tidy procedurally, but preventing disruption is the ultimate goal, and neat and tidy is often difficult to achieve, especially here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Nelson Brothers article gave us a new name that might be of interest, Irishman on the wikicircuit, a user account adding material to the article that was later blocked by Acroterion as a sock of David Beals. Probably because of this edit that, mixed with a lot of more serious text the way Pumpkin-socks do it, added this piece of nonsense: "During the 1947 elections in Greenland, very little happened on the world stage, but it should be noted that David Beals has defeated the administrators of this sad project again, as the edit here is not even serious and yet the fools have been fooled once more". Which I don't see as proof of it being DB, but rather as an attempt to make people here focus on David Beals instead of "Pumpkin", which would increase the new sock master's chances of "survival". So many of the socks attributed to David Beals might actually be Pumpkin-socks. Thomas.W ^talk 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but that account is stale, so there's no way for me to check. In addition, the account was not blocked by a checkuser. There's no indication a CU was run, and the userpage is not tagged (just a comment in the block log by the administrator).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

According to a comment on Zzuuzz's talk page Jpgordon blocked Daniels Jerkins as a DB-sock, but that account is also stale. It's not reasonable to believe that Pumpkin hasn't been active between the end of March and the beginning of July, and it's also not reasonable to believe that none of his socks have been blocked during that time. But the problem with Pumpkin's activities being blamed on David Beals is that most accounts that are blocked as DB-socks aren't tagged as such. Making finding those socks, to get a better picture of Pumpkin and his activities, difficult. Thomas.W ^talk 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for those of you who have dealt with these MP's socks and their "joke" edits. This article European Union commodities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created by Doc McM. The end of the sentence at the end of the second paragraph states "and supporting monkey pricing and settlement conditions." Is it possible that this is one of those jokes. You will see that the article has a few other edits including some by the blocked IP 188.31.0.219 (talk · contribs). I marked it for a speedy deletion since it was created by a sock of MP. If that was incorrect then please feel free to remove the tag. OTOH I did want someone familiar with MP to check that sentence as well as the rest of the article. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. MP is one that I had not seen before but all the posts by everyone will help me to keep an eye out for them in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I seem to have picked up a sock of his this morning (my morning, anyway) while dealing with another block evader (a serial copyright infringer who copy-pastes both content from Wikipedia pages and external sources). I checked his contribs to see if he was related to the guy I'm dealing with and found that, though he clearly isn't, he had recreated that now-deleted article under a different name. I blocked him for quacking, and his response to the block pretty much cemented it. I don't know the history here, so I don't know if a sock-drawer check is warranted, but thought I'd pass it along. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl, that is, unfortunately, not an atypical response by this person. I've deleted the offensive edits. It's gotten to the point that I often revoke Talk page access at the same time as I block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll do that if I run into another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A Max Pumpkin sock welcomed User:Professor K Ratnam who has not made any edits yet, but needs to be watched. Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put the page on my unmanageable watchlist, but I know of no way to watch contributions, something I've bitched about since forever.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Having seen a ton of these "welcomes for a non-existent editor" I have wondered if a new classification of WP:CSD might be in order? OTOH I don't know if that is a bigger hassle that it is worth. MarnetteD|Talk 15:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Compgun

The Compgun Page was deleted as it lacked references that describe the organization's significance. New information is available. Cool to recreate?

Tester1679 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Gadasahi

You seem to have misspelled the target of this move. I re-moved it.

Thanks. You wouldn't like to sign your post, would you? Helps for archiving.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NotAnOmbudsman RFC/N

Hey Bbb23, I noticed you blocked NotAnOmbudsman as a sock. Would you mind closing the WP:RFC/N? I wasn't sure if it would be acceptable for me to do it. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss

Good morning I'm zurich00swiss, a stupid and naive user, a user who has done something that is like destroying his dream: flying. I'm really young and I know I made a mistake, I know that you aren't probably interested in what I'm writing because I'll probably remain blocked. I created many sockpuppets because I wanted to continue editing my favourite airports, airlines but specially my dreams. I'm apologize for everything I've done; I want to became a pilot in Swiss International air Lines, this is the reason of my nicknames... If you give me the last chance I will surely be better, if I could go back to the past I'd never made this mistake, this stupid mistake of being a person without a hart with a part of my life! Without Wikipedia I'm empty, so I would like to ask you to give me the last chance. Best regards. THANK YOU ZURICH00SWISS.

P.S. I decided to excuse me alter talking about this with my dad, so he also tried to help me with the tramslation —  Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.154.74 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 July 2015‎

Bbb23, this editor has posted copies of this message to the talk pages of four editors, including two administrators. I have posted an answer to the message at User talk:Zurich00swiss. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Just spreading the love around

Hey, I have to write a LTA report for one of our more colorful characters so I'm just spreading the love around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just way too busy adminning. When you were five years old, you were probably asked what you wanted to be when you grew up, and you said, "I want to be a Wikipedia administrator so I can spread the love around." Whatever happened to "I want to be an astronaut" or "I want to be president of the United States"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I did want to be Buck Rogers! What should we do with Ammy Virk (singer)? I worked on it a bit before I knew a sock had created it. Delete as a WP:G5 or move to Ammy Virk (which is currently salted)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article briefly, and it was created by a sock after the master was blocked, right? If so, G5 applies as long as you're comfortable with doing so after reviewing the editing history.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sort of Sock?

Hi BBB, got a garden-variety CU issue with slightly different implications. I know you can't confirm IPs to Accounts, so I'm looking for guidance/opinion. It relates to Dao2k. After much interaction with him directly, including some unpleasant ones over at SimpleWiki, I think/hope that JohnCD and I have gotten him to realize that his current pattern is hopeless, and that he should back off. On User talk:Dao2k JCD and I seem to have gotten him to agree to the standard offer, after which he implied that he would cease his socking and self-promo.

Ok, background over, today I see: Draft:Yung Trace which has the same style as the past versions. it was started by an IP which Geo's near him, and edit by another UK IP. So basically I'm wondering your thoughts, and if it seems that I'm wasting my energy on an unrepentant sock? Thanks for any guidance you can offer! Crow^Caw 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crow: First, an administrator cannot unilaterally unblock a CU-blocked account. He has to consult with an involved checkuser. Second, I don't see any basis for believing what he says, and I wouldn't agree to an unblock at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes I understand the first part, we actually told him that BASC would be his only hope, and dangled the SO as a way to prove sincerity. I was definitely not suggesting an unblock, but was more wondering if all that agreement was just him wasting our time trying to help him. I've pretty well determined that now as well. Thanks for the sounding board! Crow^Caw 22:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think...

...WP:ANI#Disruptive editing during an AfD could be related to Sanjoy64 by any chance? I don't have any background on that group except for a stray action I performed recently. But the "young Indian" afd seems to be a link, and you've done a few of the SPIs. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have a weird one for you (or NeilN since this involves proxies/tor and I'm not familiar with that kind of stuff): There's User:R2d2 ka baap who was short-term blocked but ever since, there's been a load of proxies/tor edits on the user and user talk page. I'm guessing the user was using a proxy/tor as there were some logged out edits earlier (and likely not new as the account creation date suggests) and there's just been a lot of reverts on the talk/user pages. Whether anything is done reg the user or not, I'm guessing those proxy/tor IPs have to be blocked or something. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(replying here so as not to clutter the SPI) I didn't exactly mean you on that, there's four people I'd tagged there (the other three hadn't seen the original post yet, so I only retagged you), but I don't do automatic g5 either which is why it takes a really long time to sort these messes out. But yeah, I think posting on AN might be a good idea, I'll do that.—SpacemanSpiff 15:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No fun

You say "it won't be fun". That is what I expected, and I do think the amount of reason for looking for sleepers is slim, so I would fully understand it if you just did a very brief check of a small number of accounts. As for your comments about what some admins start at SPI, I tend to assume that admins know what they are doing, but I probably shouldn't. In areas other than SPI I have from time to time come across actions by admins that make me stop and think "WHAT?" so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to learn that it happens at SPI. Although over the years I have participated in quite a number of SPIs, it is not one of my main areas of activity, so I suppose I don't really know what is typical. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for dealing with it anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Stokesnet unblock request

Can you respond to User:Ritchie333's comments to you at User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015, either there or at User_talk:Ritchie333#Pending_unblock_request. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked a duck in Mollya4321. Might be worth doing a CU, since it wasn't detected in the last one and might find more sleepers. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I ran a CU and it was surprising. There's no doubt in my mind that behaviorally it's the same. The edit the account did to the Meeks article removing the image and changing the weight was exactly what other accounts were doing. Also, there was another interesting thing that happened. Mwrcwms created an article entitled Jeanette Stokes on July 8 at 13:59. I don't know why it was called that as the subject was a woman named Jill Raitt. Obviously, the Stokes name is a tie-in to Stokesnet. Do you remember Stokesnet mentioning this anywhere? In any event, Mwrcwms blanked the page on July 8 at 14:08, and it was then G7ed. Meanwhile Mollya4321 comes along on July 8 at 14:55 and creates the article Jill Raitt, which was subsequently deleted per A7. Behaviorally, it couldn't be more obvious.

I'm not sure how much you know about CUs and sleepers. If you want to know more, please e-mail me as I prefer not to discuss some of the details on-wiki.

Back to Mollya4321 and my CU. In addition to everything else I described above, there's also the username similarity with Mollyw838. Mollya4321 is editing from the same location as all of the accounts. However, the device used by the account is different from the other accounts, both OS and browser. So, technically, I can't confirm the account. I might go so far as to say it's technically between possible and likely, but speaking strictly technically based on the limited data (only two edits), some checkusers might consider that a stretch. The block, though, is absolutely justified. CU data isn't always the crucial determinator i whether to block for sock puppetry. I am going to change your tag to "proven". It's as strong a tag as we can use without referring to checkuser evidence, and it is clearly warranted here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Something must've gone awry because I didn't receive it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another user with yahoo tried sending me something a while back, and now I remember this bug. I've got yahoo as well, but receiving email is OK. I think the other user switched to another provider they already had as a workaround. I was interested in knowing more about CU and sleepers. If you don't mind, you can try to email me (assuming you don't have yahoo also), and I will then have your email address to use outside of WP interface with my own email client. If you prefer I initiate the email chain instead, I can go create a gmail one and update my settings. Sorry for the inconvenience. Let me know.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Just sent one to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it. And I responded.—Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a Yahoo! Mail account and people on Wikipedia who use GMail never receive my messages. If they write me first and I answer them, it's okay. But not when I initiate the email exchange. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sock of User:Mughal Lohar

Hello. An SPI was filed last night European time against PiedPiperofAgra321, naming them as suspected sock of Mughal Lohar. I've taken a look at the suspected sock since a couple of the targeted articles are on my watchlist, and it is IMO a very loudly quacking duck, editing at high speed as we speak, adding images and galleries and promoting the Mughals at the expense of the Marathas. So since you, according to the archived SPI, have been involved in the case, I thought I'd post here asking for a block per WP:DUCK. Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Drmies. Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Not sure what happened here?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I would provide a link to the archived SPI to save you a little time Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USAismisunderstood/Archive#21 June 2015. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand why they were blocked, it's the unblock citing an "error" by NawlinWiki that's confusing. I'm still playing catch up after being away and I'm wondering if I've missed a conversation somewhere.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

See here for explanation. Sorry, I've reblocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ponyo, I think this is the context you're missing. There was some misunderstanding/miscommunication/misinterpretation in that thread that resulted in blocks that shouldn't have been made, and then unblocks happened. This account was also in that list. —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks everyone. Bbb23, sorry for hogging your page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhyHellWhy

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhyHellWhy. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

BMK

Was trying to cheer them up...I haven't gotten along well with them in the past, but never considered them a "pariah"...but I understand your reasoning and won't say anything further on the matter. Regards. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't question your motive. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pumpkin socks

Hello. Could you take a look at this SPI? Humble the Bumble and Decent Dan Moore are per WP:DUCK (the usual nonsense, and Humble even admits it in a now deleted article...) socks of Max Pumpkin, and there's probably a bunch of other new user accounts that haven't been detected yet. Thomas.W ^talk 09:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Chad the Monkey is per this section in the article they created also a Pumpkin sock. Thomas.W ^talk 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And the same goes for the third account in the SPI, .winterbritting, per this. Thomas.W ^talk 10:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also Milcroft [42] and Jack Strax (Coppersmill) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note I've blocked all the listed socks and deleted the articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for manually protecting my talk page while I was blocked. I appreciated it. BMK (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice to see you again. I hope the break was relaxing. Everyone - not just you - should take breaks more often from this crazy place. Of course, voluntary breaks might be better than the other kind. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, there's too much guilt and angst involved in enforced breaks. BMK (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008

Please see comments by @Callanecc: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_15 ("In future reports (where there's at least a few days between the reports) point to my comments in this report, as even with recent CUs there is a growing possibility of making small targeted blocks or of Jaredgk2008 (as in this instance and the last one) using a previously unused IP address/range which is why I picked up those other socks").

The real reason for a checkuser check is to look for sleepers, as this is a prolific creator of them and boasts about having created hundreds (and a number are usually found whenever CU is run). Would you possibly revisit your decision and run a full CU on all the named accounts? (It is why I've been going to the trouble of adding them all). Mr Potto (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Don't worry about this; a clerk has reversed the close and authorized sleeper checks. Mr Potto (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Could you run a check on User:2e0gK8d0raj? He's a self-confessed sock (see [43]) who was just created a few hours ago, so it's quite plausible that there would be others. If you get this message before the oversighters come along, you'll also note his attempt (failed; he got the wrong person) to out me. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: As I'm sure you know, someone else blocked the account. Nonetheless, I ran a CU and  Confirmed the account and tagged it. I also found a few others and blocked them as well. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but the attempted outing edits were deleted, not oversighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I revdeleted the edits and emailed the oversighters, and then I left this note almost immediately (the account was blocked 45 minutes later) and went to bed, so reading your response just now is the first that I've learnt about something happening to the account. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Evlekis

92.40.104.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might also be of interest, it's a UK IP that has made two edits as an IP, both in direct connection to edits made by the latest batch of socks, showing a probable connection to Evlekis, and might also have been used to create other socks. Thomas.W ^talk 15:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of IPs used by this master is large. Unless there's persistent, ongoing disruption, no point in blocking. Thanks, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to be blocked, I only saw it as perhaps meriting a check to see if any new user accounts were created from that IP at about the same time as Evlekis apparently used it. Thomas.W ^talk 15:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood. With this master I could spend all my time on Wikipedia checking for new accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Which shows that the CU department is understaffed. Thomas.W ^talk 15:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. That's too facile. Maybe each checkuser should be entitled to one personal assistant. It'd be nice to have someone do my laundry.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify

I have no problem with your hatting at the section at the Sockpuppet investigations/FrozenFan2 especially since I missed the fact that it was taking place in the wrong section. OTOH the concerns raised were legitimate and not disruptive. The questioning of the assertion that three or three hundred editors concerns are worth ignoring is not disruptive. MarnetteD|Talk 04:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you would simply let this drop. First, WP:CONSENSUS does not apply at SPI. Second, don't ever attack an SPI clerk again; it is disruptive. SPI is a tough place, and it is run by the SPI team with input from editors and administrators. But no one outside the SPI team should be taking the kind of high-handed approach you were taking. I don't much care if you're right about which master the account belongs to (as it turns out, you were wrong). You provide your evidence and others decide what should be done, not you. Also, just so you know, I have little patience for protracted ANI-type discussions. It's late, and I'm going to bed shortly. It's been a long day, so if you continue this discussion with me, don't expect a quick response, and at some point I may cut it off.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Bbb23, I've long thought FF2 was a sock of someone. What if FF2 is a sock of the master blocked in this SPI? Is it possible to run a check of FF2 (since that's who the SPI was in reference to anyway)? Or has it already been done? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Taking a high handed approach is not in my nature and WP:AGF should not be ignored. I expressed legitimate concerns and some of them were shared by others. You don't think that I know that SPI is a rough place? However, I was unaware that there are policies where concerns raised by editors can be ignored. I am not in the habit of making frivolous or high handed reports and a check of my history will back that up. Since socks of both Jared and FrozenFan2 will inevitably return I hope that we can all work to stop them in the future. It is late where I am as well so I hope that you have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You, too. And to answer Winkelvi, the two masters are completely different, no technical relationship whatsoever. Goodnight all.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)